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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: contraindications are rolled up from contained compounds and tagged with recorded_for, only cited rows appear so an empty list is not proof of safety, and needs_confirmation/no_match produces null data plus a next_step.

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?

Front-loaded with the payload summary, then routing, then edge-case semantics — logical ordering with no filler. It is dense and reads as one long block, which slightly taxes scanning, but every sentence carries operational information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return payload, and it does thoroughly (what fields come back, citation counts, the 'top 5' cap, the recorded_for labelling). Combined with the failure-mode behavior, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 single string parameter is already documented, but the description adds real meaning by clarifying the value may be a supplement name or an Aviado canonical_id and pointing to search_supplements or a candidates list as its source. The 512-char limit and format constraints remain schema-only, which is fine.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Overview of one supplement') and enumerates exactly what the payload contains: description, uses, top 5 biomarkers with citations, goals, mechanism tags and contraindications. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings by name.

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 explicit routing rules ('For all biomarkers use get_biomarkers_for_supplement; for drug interactions use get_supplement_interactions') and states the accepted input forms and their provenance. The status-check guidance tells the agent what to do when the input fails to resolve.

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