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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It communicates the read-only operation via 'Get', describes the output scale (A-D), and names the evaluation criteria. It does not mention dependencies, failure modes, or how the optional other_ingredients parameter affects grading, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the core function is front-loaded in the first phrase. Every clause adds decision-relevant 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?

The tool is a simple 2-param getter, but with no output schema and no annotations the description must cover invocation semantics. It explains output format and typical use cases, yet it leaves ambiguity about brand comparisons (single call vs. multiple calls) and the effect of omitting other_ingredients on filler detection.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mentions filler detection and NIH verification, but it does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides; the examples and optionality are already in 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('quality grade (A-D) for a supplement'), and the three evaluation criteria (bioavailability, filler detection, NIH verification). It also lists concrete trigger questions, making its purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as verify_nih_label or check_supplement_safety, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'when a user asks about supplement quality, which form is best, whether a supplement has concerning fillers, or wants to compare brands.' This gives clear context for selection, but it does not state when to prefer a sibling tool or when not to use this tool, so it lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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