Seasonal Flower Spots

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by detailing the output fields (peak windows, URLs, notes, GPS coordinates), which helps the agent understand what the tool returns. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first sentence states when to use and what it returns, second sentence specifies when not to use and alternatives. No redundancy or filler. Front-loaded with the most critical 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?

For a tool with 3 optional parameters, no required params, no output schema, and simple return structure, the description provides all necessary context. It explains the scope, output fields, and exclusions. No gaps identified.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add significant detail beyond the schema but provides context (e.g., month corresponds to curated season). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the primary burden.

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 defines the tool's purpose: returning curated flower spots for non-sakura flower types. It lists specific flowers (plum, wisteria, etc.) and what the output includes (peak windows, URLs, notes, GPS). This distinguishes it from sibling sakura and koyo tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (non-sakura flower trips) and when not to use (cherry blossom, autumn leaves). Directs users to alternative tools (sakura or koyo tools) for excluded use cases. This is clear and actionable.

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