Get Specific Macronutrient Dri

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the supported macronutrient set and even unit conventions (protein in g/kg/day and g/day, adequate-intake framing for fat and fibre), but says nothing about caching or refresh behavior, what happens with an unsupported age-range/macronutrient combination, or error conditions.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the seven-item macronutrient list largely restates the schema enum, and the four 'use when' bullets are near-synonyms ('calculating nutrient needs', 'personalized recommendations', 'targeted dietary guidance') that add little discriminative value.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the single nested parameter object is fully documented in the schema. What is missing is routing context relative to the many DRI siblings (tables, session lookup, intake comparison) and any note on caching/refresh semantics.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents age_range format, gender values including None-for-general, and force_refresh. The description's enumeration of macronutrients and their units adds modest meaning beyond the bare enum names, but it repeats the enum list rather than explaining edge cases like age ranges outside the table.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: DRI values for one macronutrient filtered by age group and gender. The phrase 'without needing to process the complete dataset' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_macronutrient_dri_tables, but that sibling is never named, so differentiation requires inference.

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?

A dedicated 'Use this tool when' block gives four concrete usage contexts (individual needs, personalized recommendations, single-nutrient comparison, dietary guidance). It lacks any explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative such as get_macronutrient_dri_tables or compare_intake_to_dri, which are the obvious competing choices in this toolset.

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