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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable interpretive context: absence from the list means JMPR has not evaluated the substance, distinct from having no safe level. This goes beyond the annotations' safety profile.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first phrase, and the second sentence adds high-value guidance on interpretation and use. Every clause 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?

Given zero parameters, a simple output expectation, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the list contains, why an agent would use it, and how to interpret an absence. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema already covers this completely. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, the description has no parameter burden and correctly focuses on behavior and interpretation instead.

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: 'List every pesticide the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues has evaluated.' The scope is unambiguous and distinguished from sibling tools by emphasizing the complete enumeration use case. An agent can tell this apart from jmpr_search or jmpr_chemical without opening schemas.

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 provides clear use contexts: 'Use to survey coverage or to check whether a substance has ever been assessed at all.' This is specific guidance on when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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