List a food's measures

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld safety. The description goes beyond them by disclosing edge cases: a macro is null when details lack it, a user product with unit ml returns serving ml as weight_g, and a premium recipe returns a forbidden error without Fitatu Premium. That is real behavioral value, though it stops short of noting pagination or result sizing.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then adds the returned fields and the error caveat. One long parenthetical makes it dense, but every sentence carries useful information and nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be re-explained, yet the tool's role in the log-food flow, its edge-case semantics, and its authorization requirement are all covered. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 food_id and food_type are already fully documented including the enum. The description clarifies what measure_id is (the identifier passed onward to add_food), but adds little about the tool's own two inputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: 'List the measures a food can be logged in', and immediately names the fields returned. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_food, get_recipe, or add_food without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the selecting context: this is the pre-step for logging, since 'Pass measure_id and a quantity of that measure to add_food'. It does not explicitly state when-not to use it or name an alternative tool, but the workflow positioning is clear.

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