Get an irrigation estimate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that the tool combines specific data sources and returns an estimate with all inputs shown, but it does not mention whether it modifies any state, requires authentication, has rate limits, or handles errors. The disclosure that it is 'not a certified recommendation' adds some transparency, but more detail is needed for a safe and informed call.

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 concise at just two sentences. It front-loads the primary action ('Estimate whether irrigation is needed') and immediately specifies the data sources and limitations. Every phrase adds value, and there is no wasted text.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It states it returns 'a data-grounded estimate with all inputs shown', which is somewhat vague but gives a reasonable expectation. For a tool with 5 parameters (2 required), it provides enough context for a basic understanding, though details on the exact output structure (e.g., JSON format, fields) are missing.

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 100%, so each parameter in the input schema already has a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. For example, 'forecast_days' and 'management_allowed_depletion' are well-documented in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema itself is sufficient.

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's purpose: estimating irrigation need by combining soil and weather data. It specifies data sources (SoilGrids, Open-Meteo) and distinguishes itself as a 'data-grounded estimate' rather than a certified recommendation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_dry_spell_status' or 'get_soil_profile', which could be related but serve different purposes.

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 mentions that the output is not a certified recommendation, providing a limited usage caveat. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_dry_spell_status' or 'get_growing_conditions', nor does it describe prerequisites (e.g., requiring soil profile data) or conditions where the tool is not appropriate.

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