get_pesticide_by_register_no

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses that the output is a summary (total count and example crops/pests), not full application details. This adds behavioral context beyond the schema. It could mention whether the operation is read-only, but the context strongly implies it is read-only, and no side effects are mentioned.

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 with three focused sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second explains input format, and the third clarifies output scope and directs to the sibling tool. Every sentence adds value 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?

For a tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, input format, output scope, and relationship to sibling tools. It is complete and sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema provides the parameter 'register_no' with only type 'string'. The description compensates by explaining that it accepts both formats like '12345' and '0012345', adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's minimal definition. Since schema coverage is 0%, this is valuable.

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 it retrieves basic pesticide information and a summary of application data based on a registration number. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like 'search_pesticides' (which searches by other criteria) and 'get_applications' (which provides detailed application records).

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 explicitly advises that for detailed application lines, users should use 'get_applications' with the registration number. It also specifies the accepted input formats for the registration number, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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