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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context about how notes qualify provisions, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as return format or behavior when no arguments are supplied.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose, the second explains why the notes matter, and the third gives the call modes. Every sentence earns its place, and the material content is 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?

For a simple, read-only lookup tool with no required parameters and a well-covered schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, why it is needed, and how to invoke it. The only notable omission is the absence of any description of the return shape, which is more noticeable because no output schema is provided.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented individually. The description reinforces the two lookup modes ('Give note numbers to resolve, or a search term') but adds little new meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Look up the qualifying notes that condition Codex GSFA food additive provisions.' It also clarifies the role of numbered notes with concrete examples, distinguishing this tool from the broader GSFA provision and search siblings by its unique object of lookup.

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 clear context for when this tool is relevant: GSFA provisions depend on numbered notes, and a maximum use level is incomplete without them. It then states the two supported modes of use — note numbers or a search term — though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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