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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that each value carries its source and a cite line, but it does not state read-only behavior, error handling, defaults, or fallback behavior for unsupported jurisdictions.

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 tight sentences with the core resource front-loaded and no wasted wording. The second sentence adds useful return-value context without bloating the definition.

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?

The tool has a nested population object and no output schema, so the description should do more to explain parameter structure and return shape. It covers the value types and source/cite behavior but leaves the 'property' parameter and nested population fields unexplained.

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 must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions population and jurisdiction but never explains the 'property' parameter or the nested sex, age_years, and life_stage fields, leaving most parameter meaning unstated.

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 states the resource: recommended intakes, upper limits, and label reference values for a population and jurisdiction. It is specific about the value types (RDA/AI, UL, DV/RI/NRV) but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as nutrition or check_intake.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'for a population and jurisdiction' implies context but does not tell an agent when this tool is the right choice.

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