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

Annotations already cover read-only safety and open-world scope, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that results are capped (up to 10), one row per product, and that older label versions are surfaced in other_versions. It does not address rate limits or empty-result behavior, keeping it out of the top band.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the search capability front-loaded and the return contract in the second sentence. Every clause carries 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?

For a six-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the search surface and result shape but omits the default narrowing behavior (on_market_only=true), what an empty result set looks like, and any pagination guidance. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 only 50%, and the description names three of the six parameters (name/brand/ingredient) plus loosely hints at the limit cap ('up to 10'). It never explains on_market_only (default true), which silently narrows results, so it only partly compensates for the coverage gap.

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 (Search) plus the resource (NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database) and the three supported search fields (product name, brand, ingredient). It also states the result shape. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer (e.g. products_get, products_lookup), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 only implied: the searchable fields hint at when this is the right entry point versus products_get/products_lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of what to do when zero results come back.

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