get_food

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds some context by noting that the endpoint selected depends on what is available to the account, which hints at variable behavior. However, it does not explain potential errors, authentication requirements, or how the response might differ across endpoints.

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 a single sentence with the core operation front-loaded: 'Get a food by ID.' The trailing clause about the latest endpoint is slightly vague and arguably unnecessary, but it does not bloatt the description significantly.

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 that there is an output schema, annotations covering read-only and non-destructive behavior, and only one required parameter, the description is reasonably complete for a simple getter. It lacks explicit guidance about handling unknown IDs or when to prefer search_foods, but the tool's simplicity and structured metadata compensate for these omissions.

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 0%, but the single parameter food_id is self-evident from its name, type, and exclusiveMinimum constraint. The description reinforces that this tool fetches by ID but adds little meaning beyond what the schema already exposes. For such a simple parameter, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 identifies a specific verb-resource operation: retrieving a food by its ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_foods, which likely find foods by criteria. The clause 'using the latest endpoint available to the account' adds some ambiguity about which endpoint is actually used, but it does not obscure the primary purpose.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_foods. The description implies that you need a food ID, but it never explicitly says 'use this when you already have a food_id' or directs users to search_foods when they don't. The endpoint-version mention suggests account-dependent behavior but does not provide decision guidance.

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