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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), the description discloses auth and plan requirements, the data boundary ('reads only that account's data'), a data-honesty rule (pictograms only when confirmed from the sheet), and graceful degradation behavior when Section 2 is unreadable. That is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot carry.

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 return contents are front-loaded in one dense but well-ordered sentence, followed by the fallback case and then requirements. Slightly long and clause-heavy, but no sentence is 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 explaining return values and does so explicitly, plus covers auth, plan gating and the partial-data fallback. Nothing material an agent needs to call this correctly 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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3; the description adds a genuine constraint by requiring the name to match the caller's own SDSentry inventory rather than an arbitrary product string. It does not, however, describe matching behavior (exact vs. fuzzy name) when a name is ambiguous.

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 — 'Return the hazards printed in Section 2 of the SDS on file' — and enumerates exactly what is returned (signal word, H-codes, pictograms, precautionary codes, link). It is clearly narrower than siblings like ghs_pictogram or ppe_for_chemical, but it never names an alternative to reinforce that distinction.

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 scopes usage to 'a product in your own SDSentry inventory' and states prerequisites (personal access token, trial or paid plan), which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to the overlapping siblings (ghs_pictogram, ppe_for_chemical, find_sds_for_inventory), leaving routing to inference.

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