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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it returns live product data only 'when available in the catalog', always includes a cited source and a disclaimer field, and explicitly frames output as tradition rather than medical advice.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the core action and follows with output and disclaimer context; every sentence carries information. Minor cost from the capitalized 'TCM TRADITION' emphasis and the slightly run-on final clause, but nothing is wasted.

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 does the work of explaining return values: TCM frame mapping, linked mushrooms, cited source, taste/nature/meridian profile, optional live product data, and a disclaimer field. Only the absence of any guidance on ambiguous or empty inputs keeps it from a 5.

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 enums are documented, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format or syntax guidance for 'opis' or 'pora_roku' beyond what the schema already states, 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 (translates) and resource (a customer well-being description) and names the output frame precisely (qi, yin/yang, organs, seasons) plus the linked mushrooms with source and profile. An agent can distinguish this from recommend_products or search_knowledge 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?

The description sets a clear boundary ('describes tradition, NOT a diagnosis or a promise of effect'), which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it never names an alternative or states when to prefer recommend_products, search_knowledge, or the sibling tlumacz_tcm, so routing 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.