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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states a key behavioral trait: 'Returns ranked candidates rather than guessing a single answer,' which informs the agent that the result is a list of possibilities, not a definitive resolution. It also hints at alias coverage, but does not detail edge cases like no-match behavior or result fields.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the tool's purpose, the second gives workflow guidance, and the third discloses ranking behavior. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return nature ('ranked candidates') and the intended downstream use, which is enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not fully specify result fields or error behavior, but the search tool is simple and the schema already covers parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual value by clarifying what the query should contain (plain-English or local names, regional/non-English aliases) and the purpose of the result (producing a slug), but it does not provide syntax-level detail beyond 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 names a specific verb ('Find'), a concrete output (the Heathy slug), and a clear scope (foods and Ayurvedic herbs by name, including aliases). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning that lookup_food and herb_monograph are the downstream consumers of the slug, which prevents confusion with search_recipes or nutrient_ranking.

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 gives an explicit 'when to use' directive: 'Call this first when you have a plain-English or local name and need the slug for lookup_food or herb_monograph.' This is strong context, though it does not mention exclusions or alternatives beyond implicitly positioning this as the lookup tool for food/herb slugs.

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