rb209_previous_cropping_previous_grass

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the GET endpoint and the id filter; it does not disclose response format, error behavior, authentication requirements, or what happens when the id does not exist.

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 front-loads the HTTP method and resource path. There is no wasted wording, and the filtering constraint is stated directly after the resource.

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-by-id tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotation context, it does not explain what the returned 'previous grass' object contains or how the id relates to the plural endpoint, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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%, and the schema already documents previousGrassId as an integer used to filter. The description merely repeats this filter concept without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline 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 specifies the HTTP verb (GET), the exact resource ('Individual previous grass'), and the filter mechanism (by previous grass id). It clearly distinguishes this singular lookup tool from its plural sibling rb209_previous_cropping_previous_grasses.

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 'Individual previous grass - filtered by previous grass id' implies this tool is for retrieving a single record when the id is known. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the plural list endpoint or mention any alternatives or exclusions.

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