rb209_grass_yield_ranges_scotland

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the operation is a read-only GET returning a list of yield ranges filtered by two path IDs. However, it gives no detail on the result structure, ordering, pagination, or error behavior, which matters more given there is no output schema.

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 efficient sentence with no filler; the endpoint contract is front-loaded and a plain-language summary follows. The endpoint prefix is somewhat redundant with the tool name and schema, but it confirms the HTTP contract at negligible cost.

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 low-complexity two-parameter lookup, the essentials — what it returns and its geographic scope — are present. But since no output schema exists, the description does not compensate by describing the shape of a yield range, and it omits routing context to the closely related England/Wales tool, leaving the agent to infer part of the calling context.

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%; both sequenceId and siteClassId are already documented as 'the id ... to filter on.' The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond echoing the path parameter names, 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'GET /api/Grass/YieldRangesScotland/{sequenceId}/{siteClassId} — The list of yield ranges for grass fields in Scotland.' The geographic scope makes it distinguishable from the close sibling rb209_grass_yield_ranges_england_and_wales, though the description never names that alternative explicitly.

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 only usage signal is the phrase 'for grass fields in Scotland,' which implies the tool is for Scottish grass yield range lookups. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no routing to the England/Wales variant, and no mention of prerequisites such as obtaining a valid sequenceId or siteClassId from the related defoliation/site-class tools.

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