get_plant_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat those. It does add the list of specific fields returned, which is a behavioral trait beyond annotations. However, it omits the noteworthy behavior that an empty plant_id yields all plants, potentially misleading an agent into assuming a single-plant result. This is a meaningful gap given the description is the primary behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It leads with the verb and resource, then enumerates the fields. Every word earns its place, and it is optimally sized for its purpose.

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 an output schema exists (so return values need not be described) and the parameter schema covers the all-plants behavior, the description is largely complete for a simple get-details tool. The only minor omission is that the description does not cross-reference the multiple-plant scenario, but since the schema explicitly documents it, the agent will see it. The description is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, with the parameter 'plant_id' fully described including the 'Empty means all plants' behavior. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('basic information about a plant'), and explicitly lists the returned fields (name, location, peak power, timezone). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_plant_data (likely time-series) and get_plant_energy (metrics), and even from get_plants (list of plants) by focusing on details.

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 implies its usage niche (e.g., when you need basic plant info), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It also does not mention that an empty plant_id returns all plants, which is a key usage nuance, though it is present in the schema parameter description. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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