Get Food Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context by mentioning 'abridged/full detail toggles' and 'nutrient ID subsets to trim responses', which informs the agent about response-size control—something not present in the annotations.

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 three sentences: purpose, feature summary, and usage context. Every sentence provides unique value with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary action and stays under 30 words.

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?

The tool is a simple single-record lookup with an output schema present. The description covers purpose, use case, parameter semantics, and behavior (response trimming). Given the low complexity and the presence of an output schema, no further details are necessary for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 only 33% (only 'nutrients' has a description). The description compensates by implicitly defining 'fdcId' as a numeric ID, 'format' as an abridged/full toggle, and 'nutrients' as ID subsets for trimming. This adds meaning for all three parameters, though it does not specify exact formats or constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('single FoodData Central (FDC) record') and explicitly notes 'by numeric ID', which distinguishes it from sibling search/list tools. The phrase 'Ideal once you already know the identifier' clarifies its scoped use, making it impossible to confuse with search-foods or list-foods.

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 states a clear usage condition: use when you already know the identifier. This implies search tools are for unknown IDs, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use rules. It is strong guidance but stops short of a full exclusionary set.

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