Get Dietary Fiber

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that the return is a single per-100g value, which helps the agent anticipate the output shape and size. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the tool's efficiency-focused design.

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 long, with the core purpose in the first sentence and a justification for the tool's design in the second. There is no unnecessary information, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 simple with one parameter, has an output schema, and annotations already provide safety information. The description adds the key behavioral detail of returning a single per-100g value for context efficiency, making the tool's behavior fully specified for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema has only one parameter, fdcId, with type and constraints but no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'FoodData Central entry,' which implicitly indicates fdcId is the FoodData Central ID, but does not explicitly state this. Given the single parameter and the contextual clue, the description provides partial compensation but could be more explicit.

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 tool returns per-100g dietary fiber for a FoodData Central entry, using the verb 'Return' and specifying the measurement unit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the exact nutrient (dietary fiber) and emphasizing the single-value output.

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 explains that the tool returns a single value per 100 g to minimize context usage, which implies it should be used when only dietary fiber is needed and other nutrients are not required. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear and sufficient for selecting this tool over siblings that return broader nutrient profiles.

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