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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the description's 'Free, no personal or company data needed, creates nothing' is partly reinforcement. It still adds genuinely new context: no PII/company data is required and the module reasons come back in Bulgarian, which the agent would not otherwise know.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the free/no-data/no-side-effect facts, then the elicitation rule. No filler and nothing repeated from annotations verbatim beyond a short confirming phrase.

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 necessary work of enumerating the return values (modules with reasons, page count, price). For a tool whose only argument is a large nested object, it would be stronger if it pointed at haccp_options for the product groups and haccp_prepare_order as the next step, but the essentials for a correct call are present.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0% for the single 'facility' object, so the description carries weight; it does contribute the key instruction not to fabricate the assortment and to interview the user first. However, it adds no detail about the facility sub-fields (status, consistsOf, producedProducts, soldProducts), relying entirely on the nested schema descriptions to explain them.

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: returns the HACCP modules, their reasons (in Bulgarian), approximate page count, and one-time price for a food business in Bulgaria. The phrase 'creates nothing' implicitly separates it from haccp_prepare_order, and the output set is concrete enough that an agent can tell what it gets back.

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 an explicit precondition ('Ask the person about their facility and food first') and a prohibition ('do not guess the assortment'), which is real when-to-use guidance for an elicitation-style tool. It does not name haccp_options as the place to look up valid product groups or haccp_prepare_order as the follow-up, so sibling routing is only implicit.

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