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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses the result shape (up to five matches, each with a verdict, plus a 'say' line for the best match) and explains the brand_statement override rule with a concrete example.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose first, then return behavior and the brand_statement rule. The opening 'Halal or Not. Find products by name and check them.' partially restates the title, but the remaining sentences each add substantive information.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return values (verdicts, 'say' line, brand_statement). It covers purpose, scope, and output well, though it omits any statement about when to prefer the barcode-specific sibling.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the 'Haribo Starmix' example of a name query and no country-format detail, so it stays at the baseline for a fully-covered 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 and resource: searches Open Food Facts by name or brand and returns up to five matches. It is clearly a search/lookup tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling halalornot_check_product_by_barcode, and the q parameter even accepts barcodes, leaving the boundary slightly ambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'Find products by name and check them' and the search behavior. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as check_product_by_barcode or ask_is_it_halal.

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