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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses a multi-stage internal pipeline (refine → fetch studies → claims → verdict) and the non-obvious cost model 'spends one solve', which is exactly the kind of budget context an agent needs before invoking.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the domain and the outcome, with no filler. 'Spends one solve' is terse to the point of being cryptic, but it earns its place as cost information.

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 one parameter, no output schema and annotations covering side-effect profile, the description covers the essentials: domain, pipeline, and cost. It does not describe the shape of the verdict/claims output, which leaves an agent guessing about the return structure.

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 0% and the single 'question' parameter has no description in the schema. The phrase 'refine the question' marginally implies rough phrasing is acceptable, but nothing is said about format, the 2000-character cap, or what a well-formed nutrition question looks like.

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 names the domain (nutrition and supplements) and the concrete pipeline it runs: refine the question, fetch studies, surface named claims, then give a verdict. That is a specific verb+resource statement an agent can act on, though it never names or distinguishes itself from siblings like ecca_research or ecca_verify.

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?

Usage is only implied by the domain prefix 'Nutrition and supplements' – an agent can infer it is for nutrition/supplement questions, and 'spends one solve' hints that the call has a cost worth weighing. There is no explicit when-not-to-use statement or named alternative for non-nutrition questions.

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