chipotle_ingredients

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does a good job explaining the response structure and the relationship between ingredients[] and ingredient_groups[], including the joinable key. However, it doesn't disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, data freshness, or whether the content is static vs. dynamically fetched. For a read-only catalog tool this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 well-structured and information-dense, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing the two output views. It's a bit long but every sentence adds value, explaining the data model and join keys. The final sentence about family uniqueness is useful for tool selection. Slightly verbose but justified by the complexity of the response structure.

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 no output schema, the description does a commendable job explaining the return structure, including the two arrays, their fields, and how to join them. It covers the key relationships an agent needs to interpret the response. It doesn't mention pagination, but with only two optional parameters and no required fields, the tool appears simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 both parameters (region and channel) with their allowed values and defaults. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about how these parameters affect the returned content, such as whether ingredient content varies by region or channel. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 returns Chipotle's ingredient content catalog, including raw-ingredient content pages and per-item recipe breakdowns. It explicitly describes the two main output structures (ingredients[] and ingredient_groups[]) and their join keys, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like chipotle_menu or chipotle_meals. The final sentence reinforces its unique position in the family.

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 explains what data this tool exposes and notes that 'nothing else in this family exposes either ingredient content or recipe-level composition,' which effectively tells an agent when to choose this tool over siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives for menu/nutrition data, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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