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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds paging semantics and, importantly, a licensing/attribution requirement that no structured field conveys. It stops short of describing result ordering or cursor expiry.

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?

Purpose, pagination contract, and attribution are front-loaded before the field list; the enumerated columns are denser than prose but are the only place the return shape is documented given there is no output schema, so every element earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the inline field list is necessary and supplied, and pagination is explained. Missing are result ordering and the default sort, which matter for paged iteration, but overall an agent has enough to call and page this tool correctly.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 100%, so all 12 filters are already documented there, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's field enumeration mirrors the OUTPUT shape rather than adding meaning to any input parameter, so no uplift 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 resource (Swedish food composition data) with the measurement basis (per 100 g) and confirms it is a list-returning query. It does not name or contrast any sibling, but the domain is unambiguous against the other tools in the set.

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?

Covers the pagination workflow ('pass next_cursor to get the next page') and imposes an attribution obligation, which is genuine usage guidance. However it never says when to prefer this over related lookups or how the name/name_prefix filters differ, so filtering behaviour must be inferred from the schema.

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