Get the Growwer guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: 'Needs no sign-in or API key', which tells an agent it can call this before authentication — information absent from the annotations. It stops short of noting the guide's size or response format.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the trigger condition followed by the content inventory. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded or restated.

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 zero-parameter documentation tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent everything needed to decide to call it and what topics it will cover. A minor gap is that it doesn't hint at the guide's form (long reference document vs. short primer), which could matter for context budgeting.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the baseline this is a 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call and adds no misleading parameter expectations.

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?

Specific verb ('get') plus resource ('the Growwer guide'), then enumerates its contents: buyer/seller profiles, order states, paging, error codes and vocabulary id origins. No sibling tool is a documentation/onboarding resource, so an agent can immediately distinguish it from growwer_get_vocabulary or growwer_get_me.

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?

Gives two explicit triggers: 'when you start working with Growwer' and 'when a tool answer is unclear'. This is a rare case where the when-to-use is stated concretely enough that an agent knows exactly which situation selects this tool over the domain-specific siblings.

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