crop_calendar

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only adds 'DEMO' as a behavioral caveat, but does not describe what data is returned, how invalid crops are handled, or any limitations. The transparency burden is largely unmet.

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 sentence with the 'DEMO' marker, very efficient and front-loaded. It uses no unnecessary words, though the brevity sacrifices detail. For its length, it is concise and structurally clear.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks contextual completeness. It does not specify typical use cases, input constraints, or behavioral expectations. With two parameters and no annotations, more context is needed to make the tool usable. The description is minimal and leaves the agent to guess at details.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for parameter meaning. It mentions 'by region' which maps to the region parameter, but fails to explain the required 'crop' parameter or provide allowed values/examples. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema itself.

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 tool provides a Kenya crop planting and harvesting calendar by region, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like fertilizer_guide or pest_disease_alert. Although no explicit verb is used, the resource and scope are specific and unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of suitable scenarios, exclusions, or why it should be chosen over fertilizer_guide, market_timing_guide, etc. The purpose implies use for calendar data, but no explicit direction is provided.

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