Get current growing conditions

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It honestly lists the data included but does not address data recency, error handling for invalid coordinates, or any rate limits. It provides a basic but incomplete picture.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the key verb 'Snapshot.'

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?

The description covers the main data categories (weather, soil, forecast) but does not specify output structure or units. For a tool with no output schema, a bit more detail would enhance completeness, but it is adequate for a summary tool.

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?

Input schema descriptions are complete for all parameters (latitude, longitude, forecast_days). The tool description adds no extra detail beyond 'for a location,' so it does not improve on the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides a snapshot of current weather, recent soil temperature/moisture, and a short daily forecast, defining it as a general-purpose summary for a location. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_frost_and_heat_risk or get_growing_degree_days which are more specialized.

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 calls it a 'general-purpose...summary,' implying it should be used for an overview rather than specific data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives by name, leaving some ambiguity.

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