get_recipe_nutrition

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the response is limited to the nutrition sub-object, which is valuable. However, it does not mention error behavior, whether nutrition may be absent, or any authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral context unspecified.

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, focused sentence with no filler. The key qualifier 'only' is front-loaded, making the tool's scope immediately clear.

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 one-parameter read-only retrieval tool, the description provides the essential return-semantics: the nutrition sub-object. It does not explain the content of that sub-object, but with no output schema and a simple operation, the agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly with recipe_id.

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 schema only defines recipe_id with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explicitly explain the parameter. The mention of 'a recipe' provides contextual anchor for recipe_id, but the description does not add details about format or how to obtain the ID. Since the parameter name is self-explanatory, the gap is moderate.

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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('only the nutrition sub-object for a recipe'). The word 'only' explicitly distinguishes it from broader tools like get_recipe, leaving no ambiguity about its scope.

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 phrase 'only the nutrition sub-object' conveys a clear use case: when just the nutrition data is needed rather than the full recipe. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the selectivity is strongly implied.

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