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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive context beyond them: dataset size (7,793 foods), breadth of returned nutrients (36), and the per-100 g / any-amount / portion-size semantics of the values.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and mostly efficient, but 'Nutrition facts of foods (USDA). Search foods.' is redundant — the title is restated and the verb repeated before the informative sentence begins.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns; it does so well by enumerating the nutrient set, units basis (per 100 g or any amount), and portion-size support. It is nearly complete for a search tool, missing only guidance on result ranking/pagination.

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 q, limit, and category are already documented in the schema. The description adds nutrient/portion semantics but no detail on parameter behavior such as how 'category' interacts with 'q' or the meaning of the limit range, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search foods', 'Nutrition facts of foods (USDA)') and quantifies scope (7,793 generic foods, 36 nutrients). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling nutrition_calculate, so an agent must infer the split between searching and calculating.

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 through feature statements ('Calculate totals for a whole recipe or meal in one request', portion sizes), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the closely related nutrition_calculate sibling as the alternative for that calculation path.

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