rb209_arable_default_yields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it is a GET operation but adds little behavioral context beyond that — no mention of return structure, units, error behavior, or what 'default yield data' contains. This is thin for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 sentence that front-loads the endpoint and purpose with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action and resource.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter GET tool, and the description plus schema cover the basics needed to invoke it. However, with no output schema, the description could have clarified what the returned default yield data looks like or how it relates to crop types, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the sole parameter countryId is already described as 'Country id to filter on'. The description only restates the parameter in the URL path and does not add extra meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('default yield data'), and scope ('for the crops'), plus the endpoint path. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like grass yield ranges because it clearly targets arable default yields, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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 and 'countryId' parameter imply usage: call this when you need default yield data for a country. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and siblings.

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