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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does reasonably well: it discloses the identity key format (line:<name>), the fields returned (item counts per entity, proof counts per source, units), and a non-obvious semantic — lines with identical names aggregate, while different spellings are distinct and unlinked. It does not state that the operation is read-only or how pagination behaves, which are the remaining gaps for a no-annotation 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?

The scope statement is front-loaded and the examples are doing real work, but the second half packs the aggregation/key-storage semantics into one dense run-on sentence. It stays within a reasonable length and almost every clause adds information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing what each returned line carries (entities, sources, units) and how names behave downstream — that is the important part. What is missing for a paginated list endpoint is any statement about result ordering, total counts, or how limit/offset interact, leaving an agent to guess about large result sets.

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 33%: only `q` is documented in the schema, and the description merely restates it ('search by part of the name') without adding matching or normalization detail. `limit` and `offset` get no mention at all, so neither the description nor the schema explains pagination for a list tool whose result set could be large.

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 names a specific resource and scope: 'every line name that labels print and the registry has no key for', stored as line:<name>, with worked examples ('creatine monohydrate', 'a botanical, a branded blend'). It also distinguishes the content from registry-keyed items, so an agent knows this is the free-text/unverified side of the data model rather than a general search.

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?

'Search by part of the name' and the note that these names add up in nutrition, compute_recipe and check_intake and filter/sort in query imply when the tool is useful (to find or confirm the exact spelling of a line). However, no alternative is named or excluded — nothing says when to prefer `search`, `describe` or `reference_values` for the same need, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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