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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those: results are newest-first, deterministic on replay, and the tool explicitly reports uncovered scope rather than fabricating coverage.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence. Later sentences earn their place by clarifying coverage limits and pointing to a sibling alternative, though the wording is slightly longer than necessary.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies returning fields, ordering, determinism, truncation behavior via schema, and explicitly what the tool does not cover. No critical calling context 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and both `since` and `limit` already have clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds little beyond the schema for parameters, merely restating the 'since a given date' concept.

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 is specific: it returns new supplement label entries in NIH's DSLD since a date, and lists the exact fields returned (id, brand, product name, entry date). It also positions this tool as the one NIH supplement upstream with a queryable change signal, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like supplement_factsheet and supplement_labels.

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 is explicit about scope boundaries: DSLD does not publish off-market transitions as dated events, and ODS fact sheets / NCCIH herb pages do not publish queryable content-update dates. It also gives a concrete alternative, noting each supplement_factsheet response carries its own 'reviewed' date for direct sweeping.

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