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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the exact content returned: manufacturer contact, ingredient amounts, other ingredients, and warning statements. It does not cover edge cases like missing labels, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 concise and front-loads the tool's output before the input requirement. The final phrase 'Takes the numeric `id` a supplement_labels result returned' is grammatically awkward and could be clearer ('...from a supplement_labels result'), making the structure less polished than it should be.

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 read-only retrieval tool, the description covers the required input source and the key output fields, which is sufficient given the supportive annotations and the absence of an output schema. It could mention more about return shape or missing-label behavior, but the core information needed to call the tool correctly is present.

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 stating 'DSLD label id, from a supplement_labels result.' The description mostly repeats this source and calls the id 'numeric,' which is slightly imprecise since the schema allows strings. It therefore adds no significant meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score.

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 identifies the resource as 'one product's full DSLD label detail' and enumerates the included label components, making the tool's function obvious. It also distinguishes itself from supplement_labels by requiring an id from a supplement_labels result, though it omits an explicit action verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns'.

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 implies when to use the tool: after obtaining an id from a supplement_labels result, the agent should call this tool for full label detail. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as supplement_factsheet or state when not to use this tool, leaving some routing to inference.

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