get_user_plants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only a minor contextual detail about user types (installer/distributor). It does not disclose potential behaviors like pagination, empty results for invalid users, or response format, but given the annotations carry the main safety traits, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('List the plants') and the scope ('belong to a specific end user'). It contains no extraneous words and is easy to parse quickly.

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 simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly: the operation, the parameter, and the safety profile. No missing information affects invocation.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter user_name. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (it merely references 'a specific end user' without adding format or constraints). Baseline 3 is correct when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'plants', and specifies the scope: 'belong to a specific end user'. It also clarifies the user type (installer/distributor accounts), distinguishing it from the sibling get_plants which presumably lists all plants without a user filter. This gives an agent unambiguous understanding of the tool's function.

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 usage context: use this when you need plants for a specific user, as opposed to get_plants for all plants. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this when you have a user_name and want their plants, otherwise use get_plants'. There is no explicit exclusion or mention of alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the right scenario.

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