rb209_arable_crop_info2

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the HTTP method is GET and that the operation is an individual filtered lookup, which implies a read-only action. However, it says nothing about response contents, error behavior, or access requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that combines endpoint, resource, filtering behavior, and a usage qualifier with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter GET-by-ID tool, this is adequately complete: it identifies the resource, the parameter, and when it applies. The absence of an output schema and annotations means return value details are not covered, but the simplicity of the operation makes that a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already has a description. The description's phrase 'filtered by crop info 2 id' essentially repeats the schema's semantic, adding no meaningful new parameter detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb (GET), a specific resource (Arable/CropInfo2/{cropInfo2Id}), and identifies it as the individual lookup by ID. This distinguishes it from sibling list endpoints like rb209_arable_crop_info2s.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description adds a concrete usage condition: 'only required for arable cereals crops.' It also implies the tool is for fetching a single record by ID rather than listing. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.