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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description layers on genuinely new behavior: name-to-node resolution in one call, what each returned finding contains, the no-about summary mode, and the required no-match fallback ('tell the person Catalyst has no findings'). It also warns that evidence strength is not a recommendation, which guards against agent misinterpretation.

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 trigger scenario, then the parameter guidance, then return shape and the failure rule. Slightly dense as one paragraph, but nearly every sentence carries actionable content; the closing definition of evidence strength is defensible as interpretation guidance.

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 correctly carries the return-value burden: it enumerates claim, evidence strength, design, population, dose, quote, paper, permalink and citation, and covers the empty-result path. Nothing needed to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining the query/about split as a division of labor ('Pass the substance as query, and the specific effect, if there is one, as about') and what happens when about is omitted, which the schema's per-parameter text does not convey.

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 and resource with concrete example queries ("does magnesium help sleep?"), so the agent knows exactly what class of question this answers. It implicitly separates itself from get_finding/get_findings by noting that one call resolves a name 'in their words' to the node with findings, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 an explicit trigger condition ('Use this when someone asks what a supplement, nutrient, drug, food compound or plant does... or whether it affects something specific') plus a behavioral rule for the no-match case. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (search_nodes, get_findings) for when the agent already has a node id.

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