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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context that it returns label IDs for use with supplement_label, which is beyond annotations. It doesn't mention rate limits or pagination, but that's not critical for a read-only search tool.

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 zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, the sibling distinction comes second, and the search method and return are stated last. 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?

For a simple search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it searches, how to search, and what it returns (label IDs). It doesn't describe the full return structure, but the mention of IDs is sufficient for the primary use case of feeding supplement_label.

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 both parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description reinforces that query is free-text and gives examples, but doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 states the tool searches real supplement product labels from NIH's DSLD, listing specific fields (brand, ingredients, amounts, claims). It explicitly contrasts with supplement_factsheet or herb_at_a_glance for the science behind ingredients, distinguishing it from siblings without needing to open 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 explicit when-to-use guidance: search by product name, brand, or ingredient. It also names the alternatives (supplement_factsheet, herb_at_a_glance) and states what they cover, making the routing decision unambiguous.

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