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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses important behavioral traits: it returns a source-accurate summary, contains no affiliate links, includes evidence boundaries and limitations, and explicitly warns about personal health data. This adds context not present in the annotations.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The additional sentences about affiliate links and health information restrictions are necessary and relevant. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly tightened without losing meaning.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety semantics, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, the nature of the return value, and usage boundaries. It does not describe error handling or rate limits, but those are not critical for selection. The main gap is not naming sibling alternatives, but that is a usage-guidelines concern.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions 'supplement-goal pair,' which essentially restates the parameter names without adding examples, accepted formats, or how the values are interpreted. This is insufficient for a tool with two non-enum string parameters.

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 returns a single source-accurate, citable HAA summary for a supplement-goal pair, listing specific included elements (evidence boundary, limitations, safety flags, reviewer metadata, canonical source). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_evidence or get_citations.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (public, non-personal evidence questions) and when not to use it (personal or sensitive health information), including a list of excluded data types. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for those excluded cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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