taco_bell_nutrition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that values are unrounded, lists the exact units for each nutrient group, and notes that the ingredient statement is off by default because it is several kilobytes. It also clarifies the tool returns data for one item only. It doesn't mention rate limits or whether the data is cached, but the disclosed details are substantial and useful.

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 dense but well-organized: it front-loads the core purpose, then details the return contents, units, and the optional ingredient flag. Every sentence adds information. It is slightly long, but the length is justified by the complexity of a nutrition panel and the need to distinguish from sibling tools.

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?

For a read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the units, the scope (one item), and the optional parameter behavior. It doesn't describe pagination or error cases, but those are less critical for a single-item nutrition lookup. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'product' is a slug from a /food/{category}/{product} URL and that 'category' comes from /taco-bell/categories, which helps an agent construct valid values. It also explains the include_ingredients default and why it is off by default, adding behavioral context beyond the schema's terse description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get one Taco Bell menu item's full nutrition panel, allergens and ingredients.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like taco_bell_menu and taco_bell_product by stating it goes 'well beyond the calorie count' those pages carry. The scope is unambiguous: one item, full nutrition facts, allergens, and optional ingredients.

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 when to use this tool versus alternatives: it explicitly contrasts with /taco-bell/menu and /taco-bell/product, which only provide calorie counts. It also explains when to use the include_ingredients parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name a specific alternative for ingredient-only lookups, though the ingredient mention is clear.

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