get_ingredient

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It accurately discloses that the call retrieves one ingredient and that the response contains nutrition data and available units, but it does not describe behavior for missing IDs, error handling, or any access constraints.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It names the action, object, and key response contents in a compact and scannable form.

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 one-parameter getter, the description names the returned data and is not misleading. Still, with no output schema, no annotations, and siblings like get_recipe_ingredient and list_ingredients, it lacks enough context to fully disambiguate the correct tool and confirm response semantics.

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?

The only parameter, ingredient_id, is self-descriptive, and the description reinforces that it selects a single ingredient. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the expected ID format or how to discover valid IDs, leaving the agent with only the property name and type.

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 states a specific verb ('get'), a clear resource ('one ingredient'), and the response scope ('full nutrition data and available units'). This distinguishes it from list_ingredients (a plural listing) and implies it is a master-ingredient lookup rather than a recipe-scoped ingredient lookup.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of related tools such as list_ingredients or get_recipe_ingredient. It implies a single-record lookup, but it provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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