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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by stating it contains no affiliate links or purchase recommendations and that it returns 'clean canonical HAA sources', which is not captured in 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 front-loaded with the purpose and return value, followed by use restrictions. Each sentence adds operational or safety information, though the safety section is somewhat lengthy for a simple search tool.

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, the description adequately covers return values and scope. It adds important usage boundaries, but the lack of parameter guidance for the optional filters makes it incomplete for a 7-parameter tool.

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?

Only 3 of 7 parameters have schema descriptions (goal, population, supplement), and the tool description does not explain limit, year_from/year_to, or study_type. The description only hints that goal and supplement are central, but does not clarify filter semantics or how parameters interact.

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 searches published HAA supplement-goal evidence records and lists the returned fields (evidence grades, study counts, limitations, review dates, canonical sources). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_supplements and compare_evidence by focusing on evidence records and explicitly ruling out purchase recommendations.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool (public, non-personal evidence questions) and when not to use it (personal or sensitive health information). It tells the user to direct personal health questions to a healthcare professional, though it does not name alternative sibling tools for non-personal scenarios.

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