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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them — the values are reference-only, not diagnostic, and scopes differ between issuing bodies. That disambiguates the data's authority limits, though nothing is said about result volume or pagination behavior.

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 Purpose/Guidelines/Limits sections front-load the essential framing and the whole entry is short. The trailing "Ex: query_dietary_limits()" with no arguments adds almost no information, a minor wasted line.

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, and the caveats about data authority are present. The missing piece relative to the sibling list is any differentiation from get_dietary_guidelines, leaving the agent to guess which tool answers a given dietary question.

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% and all five parameters (limit, offset, keyword, language, response_format) are documented inline, including enums and defaults. The description adds nothing beyond a bare zero-argument example, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the concrete resource (dietary intake limits/targets) and enumerates the exact nutrients and population grouping covered, so an agent knows what content it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling get_dietary_guidelines, which is a real ambiguity risk.

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 for limit-value questions" gives an implied trigger, and the Limits section usefully sets a boundary (reference values, not individual health advice). But it never states when to prefer this over get_dietary_guidelines, which is the nearest alternative, so routing guidance is incomplete.

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