rb209_arable_potato_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the HTTP method GET and that the results are filtered by ID, which implies a read-only lookup, but it does not mention return format, error behavior, or any other runtime traits. This is adequate for a simple lookup but not rich.

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 compact sentence that leads with the endpoint and then adds the key usage qualifier. No words are wasted, and the information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter GET lookup with full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete: it gives the endpoint, the filter, and the arable-potato-only context. It lacks explicit response or error details, but those are not required to successfully invoke this simple resource lookup.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented. The description's 'filtered by potato group id' meaningfully confirms the parameter's role but adds no detail beyond the schema's own description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific operation: GET an individual potato group by its ID. The singular 'Individual potato group' clearly distinguishes this from the plural collection sibling rb209_arable_potato_groups, and the endpoint path reinforces the resource and filter.

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 note 'only required for arable potato crops' gives clear context on when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the singular-vs-plural distinction combined with the scope note is sufficient for basic routing.

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