get_applications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns certain fields and is not a usability check. It does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, authentication, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise (two sentences), with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second adding result details and a clarification. No unnecessary words. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points or explicit parameter list, but effective as is.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain all parameters (especially limit and usage_method), provides no return structure details beyond a few fields, and offers no usage guidance. More information is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description partially compensates by mentioning search criteria such as crop, pest, pesticide_name, and register_no. However, it does not explain the 'limit' or 'usage_method' parameters. The description adds some meaning beyond the schema but leaves gaps.

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 that the tool searches application information by crop, pest, pesticide name, registration number, etc. It also specifies that results include usage timing, method, and number of uses, and explicitly says it is not a judgment of usability. This differentiates it from sibling tools like check_registered_use, but could be more explicit about exact distinctions.

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 tool is 'not a judgment of usability', implying that for usability decisions, another tool (e.g., check_registered_use) should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provide any conditional advice or exclusions.

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