compare_foods

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral: no statement that it is a read-only lookup, no handling of unknown food names, no note on how the comparison is presented (ranked list? per-food values?). 'Compare side by side' is the only signal about the response's shape.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and the scope. It borders on too terse — the space saved could have bought one clause of behavioral or usage detail.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description is the only source of truth, yet it never says what the agent gets back or how invalid food names are treated. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is minimally viable, but it leaves real gaps an agent must guess at.

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% and the enum already constrains nutrient to calcium/fibre/iron/protein with a 'Default protein' description, so the description's parenthetical only repeats structured data. It adds no new semantics, making baseline 3 correct; the 2-8 foods cardinality is left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (Indian foods) plus the key constraint of exactly one nutrient dimension. 'Several foods side by side' implicitly separates it from the sibling lookup_food, which handles one food at a time, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: reach for this when evaluating multiple foods against a single nutrient. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when...' statement, and it never mentions the sibling lookup_food or protein_cost, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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