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

Annotations already declare this tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat those facts. It adds useful behavioral context by noting partial-name matching and that results are identifiers rather than evaluations, but it does not describe matching limits, case sensitivity, or the exact structure of returned names.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, the return behavior is stated second, and the usage guidance is in the final sentence. 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?

This is a simple one-parameter search tool with rich safety annotations. The description clearly explains what the tool returns and how those results are meant to be used downstream. No output schema exists, but the return value is defined well enough for an agent to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the `query` parameter. The description reinforces 'name or partial name' but adds little beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameters.

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 ('Find') and a specific resource ('pesticides evaluated by the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues'). It also clarifies that the tool returns matching pesticide names used as identifiers for a full safety evaluation, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like jmpr_chemical and jmpr_list_pesticides.

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 toxicological assessment.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool.

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