Dietary Export Interoperability Preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the tool is 'validation-only' and that it produces 'unsupported-field reporting', giving insight into what the output preview contains without contradicting annotations.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant or filler information. Every word contributes to defining the tool's function.

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?

Despite a rich nested schema and an output schema, the description is too terse to be fully complete. It omits any explanation of the targetProfile parameter, prerequisites for the dossier, or what 'unsupported-field reporting' entails. The agent must rely entirely on structural schema field names, which is risky for such a complex request.

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?

The schema describes a single 'request' object requiring 'dossier' and 'targetProfile', but the description provides zero parameter documentation, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what targetProfile values are accepted or how to construct the dossier, leaving the agent to infer semantics from field names alone.

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 uses a specific verb 'Build' with a resource 'OHT/IUCLID-aligned JSON export preview' and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing 'validation-only' and 'unsupported-field reporting'. It clearly communicates the tool's function and differentiates it from remediation/signoff export tools.

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 phrase 'validation-only' implies this is for preview/checking rather than final export, but the description does not explicitly name alternatives, exclusions, or conditions. Sibling tools like dietary_export_interoperability_remediation_bundle exist, yet no guidance is given on when to choose this over them. Thus usage is only implied, not explicit.

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