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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns a verdict, main scholarly views, and halal alternatives, and it recognizes single ingredients and E-numbers.

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 front-loaded and appropriately sized, with the domain list earning its place by clarifying scope. The opening 'Halal or Not.' repeats the title and is slightly redundant, but there is little wasted text.

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 one required parameter fully documented, strong safety annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the needed return-value context and broad domain coverage. It falls short only by omitting sibling routing and any limitations on question scope.

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 already has 100% coverage for the single required q parameter, including an example question. The description adds scope hints like ingredients and E-numbers but does not add syntax, formatting, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 answers any 'is it halal' question and returns verdicts, scholarly views, and alternatives. However, it does not distinguish this generic ask tool from the many specialized halalornot siblings such as check_crypto, check_medicine, check_ingredients, or check_product_by_barcode.

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 implies usage by listing covered domains, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing between this generic tool and the specialized halalornot_check_* alternatives. An agent must infer when this broad tool is preferable.

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