tool_compare_foods

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

No annotations provided; description only states the compare action and parameter details. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, response format, or other behavioral traits, but the compare behavior is clear.

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?

Description is very concise: a clear purpose line followed by parameter explanations. No unnecessary words, and it is well-structured.

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?

Description adequately explains tool purpose and parameters. Lacks output description, but given the simple comparison nature, it is reasonably complete for agent 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: fdc_id_1 and fdc_id_2 as USDA IDs, serving_grams as portion size with default, adding 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?

Description clearly states verb 'vergleichen' (compare) and resource 'zwei Lebensmittel' (two foods) with nutritional context, distinguishing it from sibling tools that search or get single food data.

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?

Description specifies the tool is for comparing two foods by USDA IDs, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, so it falls 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.