rb209_grass_yield_ranges_england_and_wales

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state 'GET' and 'list', which imply a read-only operation returning a collection. However, it does not describe response structure, units, error behavior, pagination, or any prerequisites for using the two IDs. Some transparency is present, but meaningful gaps remain.

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 one sentence with no filler. It gives the exact endpoint URL followed by a human-readable summary. Every part adds value, and it is easy to scan. This is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 two-parameter GET with high schema coverage, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description tells what the resource is and where but does not describe what a yield range entry contains, how the IDs are obtained, or how the output is structured. Adequate for basic invocation, but incomplete for an agent needing to interpret results.

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?

The input schema covers 100% and describes both required parameters with concise definitions. The description adds almost nothing about parameter semantics beyond including them in the URL template. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and no parameter explanation is missing from the description.

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 clearly states the resource ('yield ranges for grass fields in England and Wales') and the operation ('list'). It distinguishes this tool from its close sibling rb209_grass_yield_ranges_scotland by explicitly naming the geographic scope. The endpoint path also reinforces the specific resource.

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 implies the tool is for England and Wales grass yield ranges, and the sibling tool name signals Scotland as an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over another, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. The geographic scope is the main usage signal, but it is left implicit.

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