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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it requires the Scale plan and indicates the response includes dosages and timing, though it does not mention rate limits or caching.

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 two short sentences with no wasted wording. The core purpose and the plan requirement are both front-loaded.

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 description covers the main purpose, plan gating, and rough return content (dosages and timing). But with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, it should explain what 'level' means and give more semantics for the 'goal' enum values; those gaps leave the agent with an incomplete picture for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining parameters. It only hints that 'goal' is required ('for a goal') and does not mention the 'level' parameter at all, leaving both enum meanings largely unexplained beyond their names.

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 resource and scope: a recommended supplement stack for a goal, including dosages and timing. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool search_supplements.

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 adds a useful prerequisite ('Needs the Scale plan'), which tells the agent when the tool is available. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over search_supplements or other siblings, and no exclusions or alternatives.

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