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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns ranked candidates rather than a single guess, and that it handles aliases. However, it does not describe the output format, limit behavior, or any edge cases, and since there is no output schema, more behavioral detail would be valuable.

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, no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, usage context is in the second sentence, and behavioral nuance is in the third. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 simple search tool with three well-documented parameters, the description covers purpose, when to use it, and key behavioral expectations. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the statement that it returns ranked candidates, but a bit more detail about the result fields would fully complete the picture.

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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including examples like 'haldi' and 'bitter gou.' The description doesn't need to repeat parameter details; it adds mild context by explaining that aliases are searched, but most of the semantic weight is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Find the Heathy slug for a food or Ayurvedic herb by name.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing lookup_food and herb_monograph as downstream consumers of the slug. The mention of regional, Hindi, Sanskrit, and botanical aliases adds clarity beyond the tool name.

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 explicit guidance: 'Call this first when you have a plain-English or local name and need the slug for lookup_food or herb_monograph.' This clearly tells an agent when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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