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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavioral traits beyond structure: it is read-only, returns information only rather than medical advice, and notes supplements are regulated as food not medicines. It does not describe result format, ranking, or result limits, but the domain and safety posture are unusually well communicated.

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 purpose and search scope are front-loaded, and the sentences are dense but mostly purposeful. The regulatory disclaimer, while useful, is slightly tangential to invoking the tool correctly, keeping this just shy of a 5.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema search tool with no annotations, the description covers what is searched, over what corpus, and the safety/regulatory limits. Only the shape and limits of returned results are unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a simple search.

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% and the single query parameter is fully described in the schema. The description's enumeration of match fields (nutrient name, EFSA roles, buying points, brands) mirrors the schema description rather than adding syntax, operators, or format guidance, so 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 (search) and resource (supplement categories) with well-defined scope: UK women across named life stages, with the exact match fields enumerated. An agent immediately knows what the tool retrieves and over what corpus, with no sibling tools to confuse it with.

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 life-stage list and match-field list imply when the tool is useful (querying by nutrient, role, buying guidance, or brand), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternatives to route between. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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