rb209_soil_nutrient_indexes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the T04 'No nutrient indexes found' response behavior and gives a handling instruction for missing soil analysis. It does not describe output structure or authentication, but for a simple list endpoint this is sufficient behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded with the HTTP method and endpoint, then provides the most important behavioral and usage notes. Every sentence contributes useful information; no filler is present.

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 tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, when it fails, when to skip it, and which sibling to use instead. It could be more complete by describing the response list shape, but the provided guidance is enough for an agent to call it correctly in typical flows.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that methodologyId is the filter and that the result spans nutrients, but it adds nothing about the optional nutrientId parameter beyond what the schema already states. It neither harms nor significantly augments the schema's parameter documentation.

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 clear verb-resource pair ('GET ... a list of the available nutrient indexes') and names the filtering dimension (methodology id). It is reasonably distinct from siblings because it explicitly frames the result as a cross-nutrient list, though it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named rb209_soil_nutrient_indices sibling.

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?

Provides concrete situational guidance: if there is no soil analysis, skip this tool and send soilAnalyses: [], and use NutrientIndexIdFromValue instead for measured-value conversion. It also warns that many combinations return a 'No nutrient indexes found' error, helping the agent decide when this tool is useful. It doesn't enumerate all alternatives but gives adequate decision context.

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