get_pest_sheet

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

The description discloses a key limitation: treatments are never described, and instructs agents to repeat treatment_guidance as is. Since no annotations exist, this adds meaningful behavioral context. It does not cover broader concerns like auth or rate limits, but for a read-oriented tool with an output schema, this is acceptable.

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 with no filler. The primary purpose is immediately stated, and the critical treatment rule is delivered in the second sentence without redundancy.

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 the single fully described parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's content and the special treatment_guidance instruction. It does not define treatment_guidance itself, but that likely appears in the output schema, so the gap is minor.

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 schema already fully describes pest_sheet_id with constraints and an example. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage applies.

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 states the resource ('full pest sheet') and enumerates its contents (symptoms, prevention, non-chemical control, sources). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_market_price, which concerns market pricing.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tool is not mentioned, and no selection criteria are provided. The only instruction refers to treatment_guidance handling, which is a behavioral rule, not usage context.

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