Calculate growing degree days

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the modified calculation method (floors Tmin, optionally caps Tmax) and data sources (historical reanalysis, forecast up to 16 days), which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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?

While the description explains purpose and method, it lacks details on the output format (e.g., single accumulated value or time series) and possible errors. Given no output schema, this gap reduces completeness.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining defaults (base_temp_c=10 for corn/soybean), optionality (upper_cap_c), and the standard modified method (floor_tmin_at_base), enhancing parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('growing degree days'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other agricultural indices like frost risk or irrigation advice.

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 explains the agricultural context (crop heat accumulation, development stages) and date support (historical and forecast), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the listed siblings.

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