tool_find_foods_high_in

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, destructive potential, required permissions, or rate limits. It only states the function without context.

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 very concise with two short sentences for purpose and parameter details. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks details on the return format (e.g., list of food names, nutrient amounts) and does not address case sensitivity or input normalization.

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 parameter descriptions in the docstring add examples and clarification beyond the schema (e.g., nutrient examples like 'protein', 'iron'). The schema has 0% coverage, so the description compensates well by explaining the parameters.

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 finds foods high in a specific nutrient (verb 'find', resource 'foods high in nutrient'). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like 'tool_search_food' which is broader, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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 basic usage (when to find foods high in nutrient) but offers no guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools like 'tool_search_food' or 'tool_get_nutrient_info'.

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