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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the baseline interpretation (index >100 means more loss than 2014-2016) and the specific food groups covered. This aids interpretation without contradicting annotations.

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 concise (four sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides source, interpretation, and an optional filter. Every sentence adds necessary context; no fluff or redundancy.

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 output schema exists and parameter schema is exhaustive, the description covers essential aspects: data type (index and percentage), granularity (food groups and world regions), and a key interpretive rule (baseline). It could explicitly mention that start_year/end_year define a time series range, but the schema descriptions cover that, so overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema fully documents all three parameters. The description's mention of 'filter by a specific year' aligns with the year parameter but adds no new insight over the schema descriptions for start_year and end_year. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 clearly states the verb 'Retrieve', the resource (global food loss index and food loss percentage), and specifies the dimensions (food groups and world regions). It also differentiates from sibling tools like faostat.agriculture.food_insecurity and food_security by focusing on loss, making selection unambiguous.

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 implicitly differentiates usage by topic and mentions optional year filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the related food security/insecurity tools. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but explicit exclusions would improve routing.

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