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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the response shape for clear matches (data.conditions first, up to 4 suggestions) and for ambiguous queries (needs_confirmation with candidates). It also prescribes how to resolve ambiguity, which is valuable beyond the structured safety hints.

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 three sentences, front-loads the purpose, then efficiently covers two response modes and the follow-up action. Every sentence adds distinct information 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the two possible return shapes and the ambiguity-resolution workflow. Combined with the annotations covering safety, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke and handle 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the query parameter already has a descriptive example list. The description adds that the query can also be a symptom or goal, which is a minor semantic expansion over the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find the condition id for a health condition, symptom or goal.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_supplements_for_condition or search_supplements, and an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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 gives clear usage context: it explains that clear matches return data.conditions and ambiguous names return needs_confirmation, and it directs the agent to pass the resulting id to get_supplements_for_condition. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative search tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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