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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=false, and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content-scope context (agreement vs. disagreement plus reasoning and halal alternatives), but it stops short of describing answer format or depth.

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 scope is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good, but the second sentence is a sprawling run-on that crams in many categories and then terminates mid-word ('halal alt...'), suggesting truncation and hurting readability.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description carries most of the burden and does convey what the answer contains (agreement/difference, reasoning, alternatives). The truncated tail is the only meaningful gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The domains listed (food, cosmetics, medicine, stocks, crypto, money products) actually serve as an implicit topic taxonomy, which is a small bonus.

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+resource: it explains how the four Sunni schools differ and answers halal questions across concrete domains (food, cosmetics, medicines, stocks, etc.). This separates it from the single-item verdict siblings like check_ingredients or check_medicine, though it does not name them 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it is for comparative/madhhab-level explanation rather than a single product verdict, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-siblings guidance.

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