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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it covers 'common cooking ingredients' and returns health benefits and culinary uses, but doesn't disclose behavior for unknown ingredients or return format. With annotations covering safety, this adds modest context beyond them.

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 clear opening sentence. The TRIGGERS block is somewhat lengthy but provides concrete examples that aid selection. Overall acceptable structure with minimal filler.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description adequately covers scope ('any cooking ingredient', 'common cooking ingredients'), return content (nutrition facts, health benefits, culinary uses), and example usage. It lacks explicit return format details, but this is not critical given the simple nature of the tool.

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 already provides a full description of the single 'ingredient' parameter (100% coverage). The trigger examples reinforce usage but add little new semantic meaning beyond the schema's 'Ingredient name to look up.'

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 clearly specifies the resource: 'nutrition facts, health benefits, and culinary uses for any cooking ingredient.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nutrition_compare or recipes_get_nutrition by focusing on single-ingredient lookups.

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 TRIGGERS section provides explicit example queries, indicating the tool is intended for natural-language ingredient nutrition questions. This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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