pest_disease_alert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'DEMO' hints at a non-production or sample nature, but the description does not explain what the tool actually returns, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The lack of behavioral detail beyond the 'DEMO' flag leaves significant uncertainty.

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 extremely short, but this brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency. The sentence 'Kenya crop pest and disease management guide. DEMO.' is more like a title than a functional description, providing almost no actionable information. It does not earn its place given the tool's complexity.

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?

Although an output schema exists (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description still lacks essential context. With two parameters, no annotations, and sibling tools that are similarly vague, the description does not provide enough information to select this tool over others or to understand expected inputs and behavior.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the crop or symptom parameters. The required 'crop' parameter and optional 'symptom' are not given any semantic meaning, allowed values, or examples. The description adds negligible value over the raw schema.

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 identifies the topic area (Kenya crop pest and disease management) but lacks an explicit action verb or outcome. It is not a tautology, but does not clearly state whether the tool identifies pests, recommends treatments, or provides general guidance. This makes the purpose somewhat vague, especially compared to sibling tools that also appear to be guides.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fertilizer_guide or crop_calendar. The description does not mention intended scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. A user would have to infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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