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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact response content and the behavioral nuance that values may be 'withdrawn or never set,' which an agent would not otherwise know. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a read-only lookup with rich annotations, this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded with the core action and then a detailed list of returned data. It is slightly dense but every element adds value; no filler or redundancy. The usage clause in the second sentence earns its place, though the first sentence could arguably be split, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the exact return fields, the units (mg/kg body weight), and edge cases like withdrawn/never-set values. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation and interpretation.

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% and the parameter description is thorough: it specifies the exact spelling, case-insensitivity, and provides an example, plus points to jmpr_search. The tool description itself adds almost nothing about the parameter beyond reinforcing 'one pesticide.' With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full JMPR safety evaluation for one pesticide.' It enumerates the exact data returned (ADI, ARfD, year, conclusions, CAS number, chemical class, use type, links), and contrasts with siblings by emphasizing 'one pesticide' and its safety-value purpose, clearly distinguishing it from search/list tools.

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 a clear when-to-use context: 'Use to answer how much of a pesticide is considered safe to consume daily, or why a value was withdrawn or never set.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or tell the agent to first call jmpr_search for the exact spelling, though that hint appears in the parameter schema. It implies usage but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing, hence a 4.

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