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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses two key behaviors: returns products and includes evidence-graded research context when ingredient is recognized. This goes beyond basic listing. However, it does not mention error handling or behavior for unrecognized ingredients.

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 sentences, no fluff. Main purpose is stated first, then additional detail about research context. Every sentence adds value.

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 an output schema exists (not shown), the description partially covers return values by mentioning research context. It could mention whether products are paginated or what happens with unrecognized ingredients, but examples and scope are adequate.

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 100% with both 'ingredient' and 'limit' parameters described in the schema. The description does not add extra semantic context beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: to find products by ingredient and also return research context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_ingredient_info' (which focuses on ingredient details) and 'search_supplements' (broader search). Uses specific verb 'Find' and resource 'products'.

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 implies usage for ingredient-based product search but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'get_ingredient_info' or 'search_supplements'. No when-not guidance provided.

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