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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that results include the id for fetching MRLs and that partial names are accepted, which is useful behavioral context beyond the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes examples and return value info. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter search tool with comprehensive annotations and a clear schema, the description covers the essential information: what it searches, how, and what it returns. It could mention pagination or result limits, but these are not critical for a search tool with no output schema.

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%, with the schema already explaining the query parameter as 'Pesticide name or fragment'. The description reinforces this with examples but adds no new semantic detail. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantic load.

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 finds pesticides in the Codex Alimentarius residue database by name or partial name, with concrete examples (glyphosate, chlorpyrifos, 2,4-D). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like codex_commodity_search (commodity vs pesticide) and codex_pesticide_mrls (search vs MRL fetch).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when you have a pesticide name and want its Codex record.' It implicitly routes the user to codex_pesticide_mrls by mentioning that it returns the id needed to fetch MRLs, but 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.