Dietary Lookup Method Support

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the qualifier 'governed' but does not elaborate on what governance means for the response or whether special auth or constraints apply. It does not contradict 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?

A single, well-structured sentence with no redundant wording. However, it is terse to the point of omitting useful details, so it does not fully leverage the available space for clarity.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and strong annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, the concept of 'method-support posture' is ambiguous, and without usage guidance the description is not fully self-sufficient for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the three relevant inputs (contaminant family, jurisdiction, authority) but provides no additional semantics such as which are required, optional defaults, or how 'posture' is determined. The enum and defaults are only present in the schema.

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 ('Return') and identifies the resource ('governed method-support posture') with clear dimensions (contaminant family, jurisdiction, authority). It distinguishes itself from sibling lookup tools by focusing on method support, but 'posture' remains somewhat jargon-heavy without further explanation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling lookup/assessment tools. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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