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 context by stating the full scope and exact record counts per category, which helps an agent estimate the size of the result space and treat this as a broad enumeration operation.

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 with no wasted words: the first states what the tool does and the scope, and the second routes to the appropriate alternative. The most important information 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 paginated browse tool, the description is complete: it specifies the data source, the four browsable categories, the approximate size of each list, pagination wording, and when not to use it. No output schema is present, but the description gives enough context for correct invocation and expectation-setting.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it restates the categories and implies pagination, but the schema already documents page, category, and page_size with defaults and constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('Page through') and resource ('HERB 2.0's full herb, ingredient, target or disease list') and explicitly enumerates the four categories. It also names the sibling tool herb_search, which makes the differentiation clear.

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?

It explicitly instructs to use herb_search instead when a name is already known, providing a clear when-not condition and an alternative. This is the exact kind of routing guidance agents need.

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