rb209_measurement_green_area_indexes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a safe read operation through 'GET' and a complete enumeration through 'Full list', but it does not describe the return shape, payload fields, or any potential response details. For a simple zero-parameter list endpoint this is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence contains the endpoint, the operation, and the scope. There is no filler, redundant phrasing, or repetition of the schema.

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 zero-parameter GET with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: an agent knows what endpoint to call and what to expect at a high level. It lacks domain context on what a green area index represents or how it is used, but that does not prevent correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter behavior to explain. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details, matching the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 (green area indexes), the operation (GET), and that it returns the full list. This distinguishes it from sibling measurement tools like crop heights or shoot numbers by naming the exact endpoint and scope.

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 'Full list of available green area indexes' implies this is a reference lookup for enumerating all indexes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of other measurement-related tools. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or conditions given.

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