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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing what the read returns and that past versions can be retrieved by number or id, which is genuinely useful behavior for an agent with no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, densely packed and front-loaded with the primary trigger before the optional extras. Slightly list-heavy, but every clause maps to a real capability rather than filler.

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 carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so thoroughly, while also covering all four parameters and the versioning behavior. Only a brief note on error behavior or large-formula handling is absent.

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 75%: formula, version, and ifraConcentrationPct are documented in the schema, but checkIfra has no schema description. The description fills that gap by explaining the IFRA Category 4 and EU allergen check it triggers, adding meaning the schema alone lacks.

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 opens with a specific trigger and resource ('see one of their formulas') and then enumerates exactly what the response contains (lines with material, bottle strength, amount, percentages, flags, notes, totals, cost, note pyramid). It is easily distinguished from list_formulas, view_accord, and get_material because it returns a single formula's full detail.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use trigger ('when the user wants to see one of their formulas') and a concrete secondary trigger for the optional check ('is my formula IFRA compliant'). It does not name alternative sibling tools such as list_formulas or view_accord, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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