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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful return context (overall verdict, per-school verdicts, flagged ingredients with reasons) that compensates for the missing output schema. It adds little beyond that—no auth, limits, or failure behavior—but against strong annotations this is solid.

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?

Tight and front-loaded, with the return shape stated up front. The opening fragment 'Halal or Not.' is brand repetition of the title and is the one piece of low-value text, but overall there is little waste.

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?

For a simple two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, input requirement, and return contents adequately. It is slightly under-complete on the context parameter and on how this differs from sibling tools.

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%, so both parameters are documented; baseline is 3. The description reinforces the ingredients format ('exactly as printed') but says nothing about the context enum, so it adds only marginal value beyond the schema.

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 (check) and resource (an ingredients list), making the purpose immediately clear. However it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like halalornot_ask_is_it_halal, halalornot_explain_ingredient, or halalornot_check_product_by_barcode, so an agent cannot route confidently from the description alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many halalornot_* siblings. The only instruction ('Pass the ingredients exactly as printed on the pack') is an input-formatting note, not usage routing.

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