explore_foods_get_one

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 does not state whether the operation is read-only, how authentication works, whether the response is paginated, what errors may occur, or what a food object contains. The keyword 'read-only' appears in the keyword list, but that is a weak disclosure and not backed by annotations. For a get-one operation with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral context is needed.

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 bloated with a long list of keywords and synonyms that repeat the same concepts (food, foods, get, fetch, read, retrieve, view, show). The core message is front-loaded but buried under noise. This is not concise; the keyword list adds no value for an agent.

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 no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter description coverage, and two required parameters, the description is incomplete. It omits authentication requirements, response shape, error handling, and differentiation from sibling tools. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without additional context.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the two required parameters (item_id and group_slug). While the URL path hints at their roles, there is no added meaning about formats, constraints, or expected values. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Get food' with an HTTP endpoint (GET /api/explore/groups/{group_slug}/foods/{item_id}), making the verb and resource inferable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling recipes_foods_get_one, which appears to retrieve a food item through a different route. The purpose is vague beyond the generic 'get one' phrasing.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like recipes_foods_get_one, explore_foods_get_all, or other get-one tools. The keyword list is a dump of synonyms and not actionable usage guidance. The agent is left to infer context.

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