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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial non-annotation detail: traditional and modern content are 'never blended', evidence tiers are ranked (1 = strongest), and each response carries attribution, disclaimer, source_url and a safety block with cautions, pregnancy guidance and drug interactions.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause and every subsequent clause carries real information (separation rule, tier semantics, return fields, accepted inputs). It is dense and slightly run-on, but nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the returned blocks and their contents, and the annotations already carry the read/idempotency profile. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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% and the schema already lists the four accepted name languages, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by giving concrete interchangeable examples ('turmeric', 'haldi', 'Curcuma longa') that make the lookup key's flexibility unambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a sourced monograph for an Ayurvedic herb') and immediately differentiates the payload structure (traditional vs modern, evidence tier, safety block) in a way that separates it from siblings like check_claim, health_topic or lookup_food.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource ('Ayurvedic herb') and the accepted name forms are given, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no sibling is named as an alternative (e.g. check_claim for verifying a specific assertion). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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