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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it cites prescribing information as the source and enforces a clinical boundary against dose-change advice. It does not restate return shape, which is acceptable given an output schema exists.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by content coverage and then the safety exclusion in the position of highest emphasis. The content list is dense but each element maps to a real section in the schema, so nothing is filler; only minor trimming would be possible.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. For a read-only guide lookup, nothing an agent needs in order to select and call this tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by spelling out what the section content actually contains (dose steps, side effects with trial frequencies, food tips), which gives meaning to the sections enum beyond bare labels. It also names the accepted brand values in prose, reinforcing the enum.

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 ('Get MALAI's guide to a GLP-1 medication') and names the four supported brands, then enumerates the concrete content delivered: dose steps, side effects with trial frequencies, food tips, phases, first week, FAQs. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which are all nutrition logging/calculation utilities.

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?

Provides explicit positive triggers as quoted user phrasings ('what are Mounjaro side effects', 'what should I eat in my first week on Wegovy') and an explicit exclusion: 'Never use it to recommend a dose change, skipping or stopping', with the redirect to the prescriber. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated.

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