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

With no annotations, the description itself must disclose behavior. It states that the tool returns macros, vitamins, and minerals, which is the core behavior, but it does not mention limitations, error handling, or data freshness. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant or filler text. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 tool with only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return content (macros, vitamins, minerals). It could mention alternatives or more details on the 'full' vs 'abridged' format, but the schema fills that gap, making this adequately complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% descriptive coverage for both parameters (fdc_id with example, format with allowed values). The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema gives, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'full nutrition profile for a specific food by USDA FDC ID'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_food (which searches) and compare_foods (which compares) by focusing on a single food identified by a known ID.

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 when you have a USDA FDC ID and want detailed nutrition data, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of full guidance.

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