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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, lowering the burden. The description still adds value by disclosing that results include barcodes and that the search is limited to packaged foods, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys purpose, scope, output, and downstream usage with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 low-complexity search tool with complete schema and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, output (barcodes), and the follow-up workflow. It lacks an explicit alternative tool name and edge-case details, but these are not critical for this tool.

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%, with query and limit both documented (including defaults/examples). The description's 'by name or brand' only restates the query parameter's meaning and adds no new syntactic or format details.

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 uses the specific verb 'Find' and the resource 'packaged foods', scoped by name or brand. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling food_product tool by explicitly noting that results include barcodes for later full lookup.

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?

It clearly implies a search-then-lookup workflow ('so one can then be looked up in full'), which points toward the food_product sibling. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use this one, so it stops 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.