Feed America

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool returns an explicit unavailable error (not a silent failure or fabricated estimate), that the response includes official USDA eligibility and state application links, and why it is unavailable (outdated calculation rules). This is notably rich disclosure for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the single most important fact (the tool is unavailable) and the reason for it. Each remaining sentence adds distinct value: what the error contains and how the agent should behave.

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 parameterless tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is close to complete: it explains the failure mode, the payload of links, and the behavioral constraint. A minor gap is not pointing to whichever sibling should be called to actually obtain SNAP or state portal guidance.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Consistent with the stated behavior, it explicitly warns against supplying household financial information, which reinforces the no-input contract.

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 states a specific resource and function ('SNAP estimates') and immediately clarifies the current behavior: it returns an unavailable error rather than an estimate. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling feedam_get_state_snap_portal, which likely also surfaces state SNAP information, leaving a routing ambiguity.

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?

It gives explicit negative guidance ('Do not request household financial information for this tool or use a previous estimate to discourage applying'), which is actionable context an agent would otherwise get wrong. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use instead when an estimate or enrollment info is needed.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 25-result cap, distance sorting, returned fields (name, address, phone, hours, verification status), the geographic footprint (50 states + DC + PR + territories), and an important caveat that delivery coverage, enrollment, cost and current access must be confirmed with the provider. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but the essential behavioral profile is present.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the search scope, then caveats, then return shape and coverage. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the long resource-type list slightly overlaps the enum.

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 and no annotations, so the description must explain both behavior and return values — and it does, specifying result count, sort order, returned fields, coverage area, and a verification caveat. Nothing critical for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the enum and defaults. The description's enumeration of resource types largely duplicates the enum rather than adding syntax or semantics, 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 (Search) and resource (Feed America's database of food resources) and enumerates the covered resource types, which cleanly separates it from siblings like feedam_get_resource_details (detail lookup) and feedam_get_state_snap_portal (state-level portal). An agent can identify this as the discovery/search entry point without opening the schema.

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 implies usage via 'near a location' and the required location parameter, but never explicitly says when to use this tool versus feedam_get_resource_details or feedam_get_state_snap_portal, nor does it state exclusions. The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does signal a read operation and enumerates the returned fields (disaster name, type, declaration date, counties, D-SNAP info), which is genuinely useful. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and any explicit read-only/safety statement.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then a clarifying gloss on D-SNAP, then the return contents. The middle explanatory sentence earns its place for an agent unfamiliar with D-SNAP, so little is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately names the returned fields, and no annotations exist, so it supplies the operational framing itself. For a one-optional-param read tool this is close to sufficient, missing only usage routing and safety/permission notes.

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 single 'state' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description never mentions the state filter or its default-to-all-states behavior, adding no meaning 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and a well-scoped resource ('currently active FEMA-declared disasters where D-SNAP may be available'). The domain is distinctive enough to separate it from the portal/resource/benefit siblings, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance and no mention of alternative tools such as feedam_estimate_snap_benefits or feedam_find_food_resources. The disaster/D-SNAP framing implies a scenario but leaves selection entirely to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses exactly what static facts are returned (legal name, EIN, mailing address, donation URL, public-record URLs), which is appropriate behavioral context for a zero-parameter info lookup. It omits auth/rate-limit notes, but for a static identity endpoint those are minor.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the trigger condition. It is slightly redundant, stating 'EIN 92-1761881' twice (once in the field list, once in the citation instruction), but the text remains compact and each sentence carries usable information.

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 no output schema, the description must describe returns, and it does so by enumerating the identity fields. No annotations exist, so the safety/behavior burden falls on the text; for a static read-only lookup this is adequately covered. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required to retrieve the identity facts.

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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (identity facts for Feed America, the publishing organization) and enumerates the returned fields. It is instantly distinguishable from siblings like feedam_find_food_resources or feedam_get_active_disasters, which cover program data rather than publisher identity.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use this when a user asks who operates the database, what Feed America's EIN is, or how to give.' That routes the agent clearly. It does not name sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only fetch via 'Get' and usefully enumerates the fields returned, which is real behavioral content. However it says nothing about permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens when the ID is invalid or the resource is unverified/closed, leaving notable gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what you get back) is front-loaded before the usage cue. Nothing repeats the tool name or title.

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 no output schema, the description usefully compensates by listing the categories of returned detail and by tying the tool to its upstream search call. It is nearly complete for a simple one-parameter reader, missing only error/not-found behavior and any indication of whether the verification status is an enum or free text.

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% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents resource_id fully as a required numeric ID. The description reinforces that the ID originates from feedam_find_food_resources but adds no format or edge-case detail 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?

Specific verb (Get) plus resource (a single food-assistance resource by ID) with an explicit enumeration of the returned data: hours, requirements, services, languages, accessibility, verification status. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list/lookup tools such as feedam_find_food_resources.

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 second sentence names the predecessor tool and the trigger condition: 'Use this after feedam_find_food_resources returns a resource_id you want to deep-dive on.' That gives an agent clear context for sequencing. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., for browsing or bulk lookup), so it is strong context rather than full exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden; 'Get ... URL' makes the read-only, non-mutating nature clear and it proactively warns that details should be confirmed on the official portal, hinting at possible staleness. It stops short of stating data freshness/rate limits or any auth requirements.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work (what is returned, when to trigger, a caution), with the return payload front-loaded. Slightly dense and could be trimmed, but nothing is 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and adding a verification caveat, which is sufficient for a one-parameter lookup. It leaves only minor gaps around data currency and source provenance.

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 the single 'state' parameter is fully documented with format and an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the state concept without adding format or validation detail 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the official SNAP application portal URL for a US state') and enumerates the payload (portal URL, agency name/phone, Feed America state guide) even though no output schema exists. The SNAP scope distinguishes it from the sibling feedam_get_state_wic_portal.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering user utterance ('how do I apply for SNAP in [state]?'), which is clear usage context. It never names alternatives or exclusions (e.g. 'for WIC use feedam_get_state_wic_portal'), so the agent must infer the boundary from the SNAP wording.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the payload shape: official_program_url plus state agency name/phone, a Feed America state guide, and a WIC office list. It does not cover failure behavior for an invalid state code or any rate/source caveats, but for a read-only lookup it discloses the important part.

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-loads the core deliverable in the first sentence and keeps the total to two sentences. The second sentence is eligibility background that helps an agent judge relevance but is not strictly required for invocation, so it is mildly extraneous rather than wasteful.

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 must describe returns, and it does so concretely (URL, agency name, phone, guide, office list). For a single-parameter read lookup this is nearly complete; only error behavior for an unrecognized state code is unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter ('state'), and schema coverage is 100% with a clear '2-letter US state code. Required.' definition. The description adds no format, casing, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Get the official WIC program URL for a US state') and enumerates the returned artifacts (official URL, agency name, phone, state guide, office list). The WIC scoping inherently separates it from the sibling feedam_get_state_snap_portal, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening the schema.

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: 'Get the official WIC program URL for a US state' tells the agent what question this answers, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of the SNAP-portal sibling as an alternative. The eligibility sentence (pregnant/postpartum parents, children under 5, 185% FPL) hints at audience relevance but is background, not routing guidance.

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