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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered without the text. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that this is an explanatory/instructional response scoped to when account-linked tools are absent, but says nothing about response format or what the explanation includes beyond the bullet list of benefits. Adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, with the scope and the capability list front-loaded ahead of the usage condition, and no filler. The parenthetical enumeration is dense but each item is informative rather than redundant.

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?

This is a low-complexity, zero-required-parameter instructional tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. What an agent needs in order to call it correctly — purpose, trigger, precondition, and per-assistant tailoring hint — is essentially present, with only the explicit alternative routing left implicit.

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?

There is a single optional parameter ("assistant") with 100% schema description coverage and a closed enum, so the schema already explains it fully. The description does not mention that steps are tailored per assistant, adding no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ("Explain what connecting a MALAI account adds ... and how to connect it") and parenthetically enumerates the concrete capabilities unlocked, so an agent knows this is an onboarding/explanation tool rather than a data query. It is implicitly distinguished from the sibling calculators and search tools by the phrase "while only the open MALAI tools are available," though it never names a sibling directly.

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?

"Use when the user wants to log food, track progress, or ask about their own numbers while only the open MALAI tools are available" gives a clear triggering condition plus a gating precondition (limited toolset). It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative path (e.g., use malai_search_foods once connected), so it is strong context rather than full routing.

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