mfp_get_food_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by detailing the specific contents of the response (calories, macros, fiber, sugar, vitamins, serving sizes) and the return type. This gives the agent an accurate picture of what to expect.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then expands to output details, arguments, and return value. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting with sections makes it easy to scan. No redundancy or 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?

For a read-only lookup tool with strong annotations and thorough schema documentation, the description is nearly complete. It explains what data is returned and how to identify the food item. It lacks error handling or edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid MFP ID), but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 already provides complete descriptions for both parameters, including the enum for response_format and the meaning of mfp_id. The description's Args section essentially repeats this information without adding new semantics. Since schema coverage is strong, the 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 function: 'Get detailed nutritional information for a specific food item by its MFP ID.' It specifies the exact resource (food item details), the verb (Get), and the identifying input (MFP ID), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mfp_search_food or mfp_get_diary.

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 clear context for when to use the tool, noting the MFP ID comes 'from search results' and that the output is a full nutrition breakdown. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow implication (search first, then get details) is clear.

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