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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals important behavioral traits: traditional and modern claims are kept strictly separate, an evidence tier accompanies modern research, a mandatory safety block is always present, and the safety block must be reproduced alongside any tool output. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral guidance that an agent needs to use the tool correctly.

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?

Three sentences deliver purpose, output structure, safety requirements, and accepted input forms with zero filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place. The length is justified by the tool's non-obvious output contract.

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 and no annotations, the description must explain return structure and usage constraints on its own. It covers the traditional/modern split, the evidence tier scale, the mandatory safety block, and the reproduction requirement. This is sufficient for an agent to call the tool and correctly interpret and propagate its results.

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 input schema already describes the herb parameter as 'English, Sanskrit, Hindi, or botanical,' so baseline schema coverage is high. The description adds value by providing concrete examples ('turmeric', 'haldi', 'Curcuma longa') and emphasizing the accepted name forms in a user-facing sentence, making it easier for an agent to pick a valid value. It does not introduce new parameters or contradict the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a sourced monograph for an Ayurvedic herb'. It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like get_recipe, lookup_food, or health_topic, and further clarifies the output's internal structure (traditional vs modern). An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and what it returns.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever a sourced Ayurvedic herb monograph is needed. It also specifies accepted name forms (English, Sanskrit, Hindi, botanical), which helps the agent choose valid inputs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for overlapping needs, such as health_topic or check_claim.

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