search_plants

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral context, and it delivers by clarifying that search scope spans all locations and that matching includes tags as well as the schema's name fields. This is useful beyond the schema, though it does not describe result shape or pagination.

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 tight sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the search dimensions and scope. There is no filler, and every phrase earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter search tool, the description covers the key decision inputs: what to search, how the query works, and the global scope. It stops short of naming the most similar sibling (list_plants) or describing the expected response, but given the tool's simplicity these are modest gaps.

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 already 100%, putting the baseline at 3. The description adds meaning by expanding 'query' to include tags and by bounding the search to all locations, which clarifies what the query parameter affects beyond the schema's own text.

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?

Description names a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('plants'), and a precise scope ('across all locations'), plus the three matching dimensions (name, scientific name, tag). This distinguishes it from list_plants, which would be the browse-all alternative.

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 implies when to use it: any time you want to find plants by keyword rather than enumerating them. However, it never explicitly contrasts with list_plants or states when not to use it, so the usage guidance is left to inference.

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