lufa_get_nutritional_facts

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

The description gives some transparency by listing return contents (calories, macronutrients, ingredient list) and uses 'Retrieve' implying a read-only operation. However, no annotations are present, and the description does not address potential errors, authentication requirements, or behavior when product_id is invalid, leaving gaps.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a one-line return summary, and a clear parameter definition. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple 1-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what the tool returns and what the parameter is. It could be improved by clarifying distinction from get_product_details, but overall it is sufficient for basic invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It defines product_id as 'Product ID to look up', which clarifies the parameter's meaning but lacks format details or how to obtain valid IDs. This is adequate but minimal.

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 retrieves nutritional information panel for a product, listing specific return values (calories, macronutrients, ingredient list). It is unambiguous but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like lufa_get_product_details, which may also return nutrition data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does, with no mention of appropriate contexts, exclusions, or how it differs from similar tools like get_product_details or search_products.

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