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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well by enumerating the returned payload (per-claim grades, studied dose, safety, interactions, FAQ, PubMed references, buyUrl, pageUrl, translated fields). It does not state authorization needs or error behavior for unknown slugs, but the return-content disclosure is a genuine, non-trivial addition.

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?

One dense sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, then a compact enumeration of the payload. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 read-only detail tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the return fields adequately and points to search_supplements for slug discovery. Only edge behavior (unknown/invalid slug, localization fallback rules) is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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% and the single slug parameter is already documented with an example and a discovery hint in the schema. The description only restates "by slug," so it adds little beyond the schema — 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 and resource ("Get the full evidence analysis for one supplement") and constrains scope to a single item by slug. This clearly distinguishes it from search_supplements, which the description implies is the discovery path rather than the analysis source.

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?

Usage is implied by "by slug" and the schema's slug description routes the agent to search_supplements for discovery. However the description itself never explicitly says when to use this tool versus search_supplements or the guide tools, leaving the routing to inference.

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