Get Macros + Micros

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds context by specifying the per-100g normalization and indicating the data source is a FoodData Central entry. This is useful behavioral information beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover error cases. With strong annotations, this is sufficient.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and includes all key details (per 100g, macro plus micro panels, FoodData Central entry).

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?

With a low-complexity one-parameter tool, strong read-only/idempotent annotations, and a known output schema, the description is complete for its purpose. It clearly states what is returned and the unit, and the output schema covers return structure. Nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'fdcId' parameter. It does so implicitly by referencing 'FoodData Central entry', making it clear fdcId is the entry's identifier. However, it doesn't explicitly define the parameter or mention its format/constraints beyond the schema's exclusiveMinimum. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 macro and vitamin/mineral panels for a FoodData Central entry, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('FoodData Central entry'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_macros and get_micros by making clear it combines both, and the per-100g unit adds useful specificity.

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 (when you need both macro and micro panels for a food entry) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't say 'use get_macros for only macros' or 'avoid this if you need just one panel.' Thus it provides clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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