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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining what the returned content covers (evidence table, FAQ, etc.), but does not add further behavioral constraints such as rate limits, required auth, or error handling. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 reflects useful but not rich additional behavioral context.

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 two sentences, with the 'when' condition first and a compact list of outputs second. The parenthetical example for perimenopause adds concrete detail without redundant words. There is no repetitive or vacuous content; every phrase carries relevant 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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of enumerating the return sections: plain-language framing, research findings, evidence table with authorised claims, product criteria, and FAQ. It also implies the usage by stating 'for perimenopause: what it is, its timeline, when to see a GP.' It lacks only lower-level details (e.g., exact response shape, error cases) that may be implied by the enum constraints.

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 coverage is 100% – the lone 'topic' parameter is fully documented with an enum and concise helper text. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond saying 'one topic', which is already structural in the schema. This meets the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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+resource: 'Call this when the user wants to understand a women's-health topic, not only buy something.' It enumerates the return composition (plain-language framing, research findings, evidence table, product criteria, FAQ), which clearly identifies the tool's primary function and differentiates it from purchase-related siblings by the 'not only buy something' clause.

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 explicit initial sentence 'Call this when the user wants to understand a women's-health topic' gives a clear trigger condition. The phrase 'not only buy something' provides a principal exclusion, guiding the agent away. However, it does not name the specific sibling alternatives (e.g., recommend_supplements), so the routing is implied rather than exhaustive, leaving some room for inference.

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