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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that all 6 params are required and provides input constraints, but does not explicitly note the operation is read-only or describe error behavior if the combination is not found. Still, it offers some behavioral context by defining the input space.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact parameter list with inline explanations. Every line adds unique information, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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?

Given the tool's 6-parameter complexity, a minimal schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers allowed values, units, aliases, and required status. The existing output schema covers return values, so the description does not need to do so, leaving no major information gaps.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter: allowed values (e.g., AAFCO|FEDIAF..., dog|cat, adult|GR), examples (year: 2024), units (DM, cal per 1000 kcal), and aliases (Ca, P). This goes far beyond the bare schema and is essential for correct invocation.

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 opens with 'Single nutrient requirement from one standard', which clearly identifies the verb (retrieve), resource (nutrient requirement), and scope (single standard). This directly distinguishes it from the sibling compare_nutrient_standards tool, which presumably handles multiple standards.

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 description implies when to use this tool by emphasizing 'one standard', contrasting with the sibling comparison tool. It gives clear context for single-nutrient lookups, though it doesn't explicitly state 'use this for single standards, use compare_nutrient_standards for comparisons'.

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