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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: PubMed-cited edges are tiered 'laboratory', uncited ones are 'computational_prediction', and target associations are explicitly not evidence that an ingredient treats any condition. This materially helps the agent interpret results safely.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the resource and both return categories, then adds the critical interpretive caveat in a separate sentence.

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 lookup tool with simple, fully documented parameters, the description covers the resource, output categories, evidence semantics, and a domain-critical caveat. No output schema exists, but the description gives enough about the returned data for an agent to use it 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by clarifying that 'targets' refers to protein targets with literature-evidence tiers and that herbs are the herbs in which the ingredient was identified. This enriches the otherwise minimal schema descriptions for herbs_limit and targets_limit.

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 a single TCM ingredient and specifies that the tool returns its protein targets and source herbs. It distinguishes ingredient-centric scope from herb-centric siblings like symmap_herb, though it lacks an explicit retrieval verb and does not name an alternative sibling.

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: for ingredient-centric queries about targets and herbs. However, it provides no explicit comparison to sibling tools such as symmap_herb, symmap_herb_ingredients, or symmap_search, and no exclusions are stated.

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