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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: output is reference-only rather than advice, and clarifications quote source wording without extrapolation. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Organized into Purpose / Guidelines / Limits with a trailing example; front-loaded and essentially waste-free. The example is slightly illustrative rather than informative but is short enough to justify its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained; the description covers what it returns conceptually (clarifications plus evidence notes), when to use it, and its non-advice boundary. Little is missing for a zero-required-parameter query tool.

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 in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes only a single example call with the keyword parameter, adding no new semantics for language, format, or pagination.

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 (query/clarify) and resource (common health myths) with the source basis (official or systematic-review wording) plus supporting evidence notes. That is enough to separate it from data-lookup siblings like get_health_indicators or query_dietary_limits, though no sibling is named 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?

"Use when a claim needs checking" gives a clear triggering condition, and the Limits clause adds a usage boundary (reference only, not advice, no extrapolation). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or describing when not to use it at all.

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