tool_get_nutrient_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions the output includes function, deficiency signs, and food sources but lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as input validation, data source, freshness, or error handling. The tool's read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the mixture of English (tool name) and German (description) may reduce clarity for some agents. It conveys essential information without extraneous 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 tool has one parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description covers the basic input and expected output. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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 lists one parameter 'nutrient' with only type and no description (0% coverage). The description adds examples ('vitamin c', 'iron') and clarifies that it expects a nutrient name, compensating for the schema gap and providing useful context.

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: to provide detailed information about a nutrient, including function, deficiency signs, and food sources. It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (nutrient info), distinguishing it from siblings like tool_find_foods_high_in and tool_get_nutrition_facts.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It implies usage based on the need for nutrient detail, but no when-not or exclusion criteria are given. Siblings are listed but not referenced.

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