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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by disclosing the return shape — answer units with page URLs, a best-matching topic, and named product recommendations each with its authorised claim. It omits any note on result ranking/fallback behaviour when nothing matches, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the actionable 'call this first' trigger and the example question, then the return payload. The single long sentence with a heavy parenthetical list is dense and slightly run-on, but every clause conveys selection-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 must carry the return-value burden and does so thoroughly — enumerating content types, URLs, topic matching, and claim-bearing product cards. Combined with the when-to-use trigger, an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the free-text, user's-own-words nature of 'question' but adds no syntax or formatting detail, and never mentions maxResults — baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 ('Searches all of HerStack's evidence-led guidance for UK women in midlife') and then enumerates exactly what it returns (FAQ answers, research findings, evidence rows, product cards, meal plans). The 'Call this first' framing positions it as the entry point versus the narrower siblings like get_evidence and get_topic_guidance, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('when a user describes their situation or asks a question in their own words') reinforced by a concrete example query. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to the sibling tools (get_product_details, recommend_supplements) for narrower intents, so it is clear but not fully routing-aware.

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