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

Read-only and open-world behavior is already declared by annotations, so the description's marginal contribution is the return-shape detail (ingredient-level amounts, converted amounts, form, %DV) and the 10-item cap. It says nothing about error handling for invalid IDs, permission requirements, or pagination behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource, the selector, and the payload contents front-loaded, and no filler. The colon-separated field list is efficient, though the phrasing is slightly compressed at the cost of 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 output schema, the description does carry the burden of explaining returns and it does list the key per-ingredient fields, which is the most important gap filled. However, it omits the singular-vs-array parameter behavior and any error or batching semantics, leaving the definition only adequately complete for a two-parameter lookup.

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 description confirms the ID-based lookup and restates the batch limit of 10, but does not explain the relationship between the singular dsld_id and the array dsld_ids, nor which to prefer or what happens if both are supplied. With schema coverage at only 50%, this leaves real ambiguity that the description could have resolved.

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 resource ('full normalized supplement labels') and the key selector ('by DSLD ID'), and describes the payload's granularity ('every ingredient with label amount, converted amount, form and %DV'). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like products_lookup or products_search, 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g. products_lookup vs products_search). The only usage hint is the '(up to 10)' batch ceiling, which is a constraint rather than guidance on when this tool is the right choice.

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