food.barcode-lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the data source (Open Food Facts, CC0) and lists returned fields, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, rate limits, or any side effects beyond the lookup.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that efficiently communicates purpose and return fields. It is front-loaded with the primary function and lists key outputs without unnecessary words.

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 simplicity of a single-parameter lookup, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the data source, and the return fields. It lacks explicit error handling details but is largely complete for a straightforward query tool.

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 schema covers the sole parameter 'barcode' with a description '6-14 digit UPC/EAN.' The tool description adds little beyond the schema, merely restating 'by UPC/EAN barcode.' With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Food product lookup by UPC/EAN barcode' via Open Food Facts. It lists specific return fields like product name, brand, ingredients, allergens, etc., making it distinct from sibling tools like barcode.generate or nutrition.food.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. It simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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