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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does state the key behavioral facts: it is a pure read that returns reference material, and it is free (does not consume quota). It does not say how large the full payload is or whether repeated calls should be cached, which is the remaining meaningful gap for a registry dump.

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?

Two short sentences, with the directive "Start here" first and the payload contents second; every clause names a distinct returned artifact. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 one-optional-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema reference tool, the description covers what it returns and why to call it first. The only missing piece an agent would want is that the 'section' argument can narrow the response instead of pulling everything.

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 0%, so the description should explain the single 'section' parameter, but it never mentions the parameter or its 'all' default. It partially compensates by enumerating the content categories (properties, regimes, proof ranks, operations) that match the enum values, letting an agent infer the mapping, but the explicit 'fetch a subset' behavior is left implicit.

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?

"Returns the property registry..." names a specific verb and enumerates the exact resources returned: nutrient keys with units and meaning, labelling regimes, entity kinds, proof ranks, quota, and usage docs. That enumeration is far more concrete than the bare name 'describe' and lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like reference_values or usage.

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?

"Start here" is an explicit, front-loaded usage directive that tells the agent to call this before the other 26 tools, and "Free" signals it costs no quota. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or pointing to alternatives once the registry is known, so it falls just short of a 5.

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