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

The annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to carry the full behavioral burden. It adds useful source context (the supplemental.pl article) and a legal citation (Art. 29–30), but it does not describe output format, rate limits, or permissions.

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?

Two compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the legal and source context and the disambiguation note. Every sentence contributes without repetition.

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 the low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), the description is nearly complete: it identifies the procedure, its legal basis, its source, and a key distinguishing point. It could be strengthened by explicitly noting the expected output form and the sibling alternative, but no essential invocation detail is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter (lang) and schema description coverage is 100%, with an enum and a documented default. The description does not mention the language parameter at all, which is acceptable at high schema coverage but adds no extra meaning.

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 resource (food supplement), a specific action (step-by-step procedure for notifying), and a specific authority (Polish Chief Sanitary Inspectorate). It also explicitly distinguishes the operation from a sibling domain, stating that a GIS notification is not a novel food authorisation, which lets an agent separate it from novel_food_status.

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?

It gives clear context that this tool is for the notification procedure itself and carves out the adjacent 'novel food authorisation' case. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tool to use for that adjacent case, nor does it spell out a 'use this when / do not use this when' routing rule.

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