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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful source context (USDA table) and filtering scope but does not describe return row structure, pagination, or how missing filters behave.

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 that front-loads the action and resource. Every clause contributes to identifying the filtered USDA cooking-yield table.

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 two-optional-parameter reference-listing tool with rich annotations, the description gives enough context to understand what is being listed and how it can be filtered. It could be slightly more complete by noting that both filters are optional and that rows contain yield values, but no output schema exists and no critical usage detail is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including accepted cooking-method terms and category values. The description restates the filter categories and method but adds no syntax or matching semantics beyond 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 (List) and resource (rows of the USDA Table of Cooking Yields) and names the filtering dimensions. It distinguishes itself from sibling calculation/conversion tools by framing this as a table-listing operation, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like find_cooking_yield.

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: browse or list cooking-yield rows filtered by category and cooking method. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus find_cooking_yield or the conversion/calculation siblings.

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