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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral contract not present in annotations: the returned values are authoritative Bulgarian literals that must be passed verbatim downstream. It stops short of describing result size or pagination.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The content enumeration comes first and the call-ordering plus value-fidelity rule follows, so the actionable instruction is front-loaded after the essential scope.

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 describing the return value, and it does so by naming the four answer categories. For a zero-parameter lookup tool this gives an agent everything needed to call it and use the result correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by clarifying that the payload is an enumeration of allowed values rather than a computed result, though there is nothing parameter-level to explain.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('every allowed answer of the HACCP Bulgaria questionnaire'), then enumerates the answer categories (facility types with prices, rooms, work steps, food groups). This is clearly distinguishable from the two siblings, which consume rather than expose these values.

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?

'Call it first' gives explicit ordering, and 'use only these exact Bulgarian values in haccp_check and haccp_prepare_order' names both alternatives plus the constraint that selects correct usage. Nothing is left to inference about when to reach for this tool.

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