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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the return is SuppCo's summaries of published studies with evidence grades, and it carries a medical disclaimer (no diagnosis, treatment, or recommendation). It does not discuss pagination or result volume.

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 primary usage trigger, then the return shape, then the disclaimer and sibling routing. Three dense sentences with little waste; the only minor redundancy is restating the two search modes already implied by the parameters.

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 usefully characterizes the return (study summaries with evidence grades) and frames the tool's limits. Both optional parameters, the zero-required-parameter case, and the sibling alternatives are all accounted for; only result breadth or pagination behavior is unaddressed.

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% and both parameters are optional with their own examples and 'omit to search all' semantics already stated in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching behavior beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('search' for published research on a supplement's effects) and immediately clarifies scope with concrete examples (heart health, stress, focus). It also names two sibling tools it is not, so an agent can route without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers (overall effects, effect on a specific health area, which supplements have the most research) and explicit alternatives with their own conditions: suppco_get_nutrient_info for dosing/nutrient basics and suppco_search_protocols for a full routine for a goal. Nothing is left to inference.

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