Get Cnf Nutrient Profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose key traits: the tool stores data into a session, processes 146+ nutrients, and 'may impact performance'. It does not state permission/auth requirements or what happens on an invalid session_id, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then structured into a scannable use-case list followed by the alternative. The one caveat about 146+ nutrients and performance is placed at the end, which is the only mild ordering weakness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explaining, and the single nested parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description is complete for calling the tool correctly, with only secondary gaps around session prerequisites and failure behavior.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both nested fields are documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds indirect meaning by implying that a full profile is persisted to the session, but it says nothing specific about food_code format or how preferred_units affects the stored profile.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve complete nutrient profile') and immediately scopes it ('all available nutrients for research-grade analysis'), which cleanly separates it from the streamlined macronutrient sibling.

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?

Gives an explicit 'Use this tool for' list covering four concrete scenarios and names the alternative tool plus the condition that selects it ('for basic recipe nutrition analysis, consider get_cnf_macronutrients_only'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure an agent needs.

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