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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact output content: MRLs across commodities, ADI, residue chemical definition, and pesticide class. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's primary output and scope; the second covers input format and practical usage. Every sentence earns its place.

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 must explain what the tool returns, and it does: per-commodity MRLs, ADI, residue definition, and pesticide class. It also clarifies the single-pesticide scope and the accepted input forms, making it complete for an agent invoking this tool.

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 parameter is already fully documented as accepting a pesticide name or numeric id. The description repeats this fact but adds no new semantic depth beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: it returns maximum residue limits for one pesticide across all commodities, plus ADI, residue chemical definition, and pesticide class. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like codex_commodity_mrls by emphasizing single-pesticide, cross-commodity scope.

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 states when to use the tool: to answer how much of a pesticide is legally permitted in foods, and explains it accepts a pesticide name or numeric id. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the scope is clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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