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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that condition names resolve even when titles are physiological, that diagnosis-related topics include evidence notes with their own rating, and that for ADHD and autism the note explicitly says diet is not a treatment per NICE. It also instructs the agent to reproduce those notes rather than summarize them away, which is a critical behavioral directive.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage trigger, parameter semantics, evidence-note behavior, reproduction instruction, and the omit-argument case. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains readable despite covering a lot of nuance.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers what the return content is, how to handle condition-related evidence notes, how arguments affect behavior, and what happens when the argument is omitted. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and use its output appropriately.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, giving the baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics for the 'topic' parameter by explaining that it accepts goals or condition names and that condition names resolve correctly. The 'include_recipes' parameter is not elaborated in the description, but the schema already explains its default and meaning.

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 states exactly what the tool provides: what to eat for a health goal, the nutrients involved, why each one matters, and raw recipes that carry them. It also gives a clear invocation trigger, 'Call this before answering "what should I eat for X"', which distinguishes it from recipe-searching and nutrient-ranking siblings. The scope is unambiguous even without naming alternatives explicitly.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call the tool before answering 'what should I eat for X', and it clarifies that condition names as well as goal names are accepted. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention sibling alternatives, but the context is clear enough for correct selection in most cases.

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