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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it discloses data source (KBeauty Verified), required attribution with url/cite, and explicitly disclaims that it's not a safety rating or medical advice. Lacks detail on response shape/pagination but covers important behavioral traits.

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?

Front-loads purpose, but the citation/attribution and disclaimer clauses are long and consume much of the description. Information earns its place but structure mixes core function with legal boilerplate in one block.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain return fields and the limit parameter. It covers source and disclaimers well but leaves result structure and the second parameter under-specified.

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 0%, so description must compensate; it clarifies 'q' as a word matched across four name types, which is useful, but never mentions the 'limit' parameter or its max of 10 (though it says 'up to 10'). Partial compensation only.

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?

Clear verb 'find' plus resource 'ingredients' and specifies the search targets (INCI, common, trade, Korean name), which distinguishes it from lookup_ingredient and check_ingredient_list.

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?

Implies usage by naming search fields and cap of 10, but never contrasts with sibling lookup_ingredient or explains when to prefer exact lookup vs this search. Usage is inferable but not directed.

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