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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context that data is answered from the SymMap v2.0 published table and that traditional TCM attributes are not clinically demonstrated. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then listing included fields and the input flexibility. Every sentence adds relevant information without redundancy.

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 the simple one-parameter tool and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what will be returned (names, properties, meridians, drug class, used part) and adds an important caveat about traditional vs clinical use. It does not mention error behavior for unmatched herbs, but that is not critical for this simple lookup.

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 single required parameter 'herb' is fully covered by the schema with examples (ginseng/人参), and the description supplements it by stating it accepts any name form or SMHB id. This adds clear input semantics beyond the basic schema type.

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?

Description clearly identifies a specific resource: a full record for one of the 698 herbs in SymMap v2, including names, TCM properties, meridians, drug class, and used part. It is distinct enough from sibling tools by emphasizing 'full record' and accepting any name form or SMHB id, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 gives input flexibility ('Accepts any name form or a SMHB id') but does not state when to choose this tool over sibling tools like symmap_search, symmap_herb_ingredients, or symmap_herb_symptoms. No explicit use-case or alternative guidance is provided.

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