rb209_grass_site_class_id

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

The description discloses that this is a GET/calculation operation, which reasonably implies a read-only behavior. With no annotations provided, though, it does not describe the shape of the returned site class id, possible error behavior, or how this result relates to other site-class endpoints.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the HTTP method and endpoint and directly states the tool's purpose. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 three-parameter calculation, the description plus fully covered schema is largely sufficient. However, the lack of an output schema and any description of the return value leaves a moderate gap in what an agent can expect from the response.

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%, with each parameter (altitude, rainfall, soilTypeId) already documented with units or meaning. The description adds no further parameter detail beyond mirroring the endpoint path, so the baseline score 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 states a specific action ('Calculate the site class id') and a clear scope ('for Scottish grassland fields'), making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable. Including the endpoint path reinforces the resource and helps distinguish it from related site-class and growth-class sibling tools.

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 phrase 'for Scottish grassland fields' implies the primary use case, and the schema lists the required inputs. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of related sibling tools, nor does it state any exclusions.

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