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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it returns ranked candidates rather than guessing a single answer, which tells the agent to expect a disambiguation list. No auth, rate limit, or tie-breaking detail beyond that.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the routing purpose and the return-shape caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no restatement of the title.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description characterizes the return as ranked candidates, which is the key thing an agent needs. Combined with the 100%-covered input schema and read-only annotations, only minor gaps remain (e.g., no hint on how to pick among candidates).

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%, so query, kind, and limit are already documented with examples and defaults. The description reinforces alias coverage (Hindi, Sanskrit, botanical names) but does not add syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (find/resolve) and resource (Heathy slug for a food or Ayurvedic herb), and explicitly contrasts with lookup_food and herb_monograph, which consume the slug rather than produce it. An agent can distinguish this from its siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly frames the use case: resolving a plain-English or local name to the slug that lookup_food and herb_monograph accept. The alternative consumers are named, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., versus nutrient_ranking or search_recipes) beyond the slug-resolution framing.

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