APIbase

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the external data source (NIH DSLD) and specifically enumerates the data fields returned, helping the agent understand what content to expect without contradicting the safety 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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The em-dash efficiently separates the action ('Get full supplement label data') from the specific content details. Every word earns its place.

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 simple lookup tool with comprehensive annotations and 100% parameter coverage, the description is complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by listing the specific data fields returned. Could be improved by noting error behavior (e.g., 'returns null if ID not found'), but adequate for the complexity level.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage ('NIH DSLD supplement label ID'), the schema fully documents the parameter. The description reinforces the NIH DSLD context but does not add additional semantic details (e.g., format constraints, example IDs) beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 ('Get') and resource ('supplement label data'), and explicitly lists the data fields returned (ingredients, amounts per serving, daily values, target groups). The mention of 'NIH DSLD' clearly identifies the data source and distinguishes this from generic health data 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?

Usage is implied by the parameter 'dsld_id' and the mention of 'NIH DSLD,' suggesting this requires a specific identifier. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus the sibling 'health.supplements.search' tool (e.g., 'use this when you have a DSLD ID, use search to find IDs').

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