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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds material context beyond that: it is reference-only and explicitly not diagnostic, and it warns that BMI/waist cut-offs diverge between WHO and China standards. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure not captured by annotations.

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?

Labeled sections (Purpose/Guidelines/Limits) front-load the key information and every clause contributes. The trailing "Ex: get_health_indicators()" is slightly redundant for a zero-required-parameter call, but overall it is tight.

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 return values need no explanation. Combined with the stated purpose, usage rules, and standards warning, the description gives the agent enough to invoke and interpret the tool correctly; only explicit sibling routing is absent.

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 description coverage is 100% with enums documented for language and response_format, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., what keyword matches), leaving this at the baseline.

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 concrete resource ("health indicator reference values") and enumerates the exact content: BMI classes, waist thresholds, body-fat reference points. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_dietary_guidelines and query_health_myths, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 invocation rules ("ALWAYS state which standard is being used", "never mix them") that govern correct usage, which is genuinely useful. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives like query_health_myths or get_dietary_guidelines, so selection remains inferred.

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