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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint) and scope (openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, but the description goes further by disclosing meaningful lookup behavior: case-insensitive matching, exact-match priority, unique-substring fallback, and that ambiguous names are reported rather than guessed. That is real behavioral context not present in the schema. It stops short of describing not-found behavior or date defaulting.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core capability stated first and the matching rules second. The list of nutrition fields is slightly enumerative but earns its place by concretely defining 'full nutrition panel'. Front-loading is good.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers the tricky input semantics (naming/ambiguity) that an agent could otherwise get wrong. It is still silent on what happens when no dish matches and on what the omitted 'date' parameter defaults to, which the schema hints at but does not resolve.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning for the 'item' parameter by explaining the matching algorithm and its precedence rules, which the schema's terse 'The dish name' does not convey. Hall and date semantics remain fully delegated to 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get the full nutrition panel of one dish') and enumerates exactly what the panel contains (serving size, calories, fat, cholesterol, sodium, carbohydrate, protein, micronutrients). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_menu and search_dishes, which are about discovery rather than per-dish nutrient detail.

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 only implied: the caller must already know a dish name and want its nutrition rather than the menu listing. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_menu or search_dishes, nor any prerequisite guidance. The alternative tools are never named.

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