Get Multiple Foods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds 'reduce repeated network calls' as an efficiency note but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, error behavior, or external API dependencies beyond the vague 'per the API.' It meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds value. No wasted words, and it covers the key capability, batch limits, and filter options efficiently.

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 tool with 7 parameters and low schema coverage, the description provides a clear high-level overview but omits the behavior of several optional flags. The existence of an output schema covers return values, but the missing parameter semantics create a significant gap in understanding how to configure the call. It's adequate for the core use case but not fully complete.

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 14% (only 'nutrients' has a description). The description explains a few parameters (fdcIds, format, nutrients) but leaves four parameters (includeRaw, sampleSize, previewOnly, estimateOnly) entirely unexplained. With such low schema coverage, the description must compensate by clarifying all parameters, but it only covers about half, leaving the agent guessing about the other options.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Batch lookup for multiple FDC IDs via the USDA bulk endpoint.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like get-food (singular) and list-foods by emphasizing the batch capability and bulk endpoint, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use this tool: 'Provide up to 50 IDs to reduce repeated network calls.' This explains the advantage over repeated single lookups, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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