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

The description explains the tool's behavior thoroughly: it returns product info and flagged ingredients with severity, rule, citation, and notes, and optionally escalates flags based on conditions. It does not mention any side effects or destructive actions, which is appropriate for a read-only lookup. However, without annotations, it could explicitly state it performs no modification.

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?

The description is concise yet comprehensive, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing the output and optional conditions. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return value structure. It covers both parameters, provides examples of conditions, and gives enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly. For a tool with two parameters and no nested objects, this is complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, and the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that the barcode is for Australian products, that conditions escalate flags, and lists all supported conditions. This provides clear context for both parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: look up an Australian product by barcode and get chemical-safety analysis. It specifies the input format (EAN/UPC/JAN, 6-14 digits) and the output (product info, flagged ingredients with severity, rule, citation, notes). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_catalog_stats or get_resources.

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?

The description implicitly guides usage by detailing the tool's functionality and optional conditions for chronic conditions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Given that siblings are unrelated, the lack of direct comparison is acceptable but not optimal.

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