Get Macros

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds the important detail that values are normalized per 100g, but it does not disclose edge cases like missing data, zero values, or error handling.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 (one input) and has an output schema, so the description need not spell out return fields. It adequately covers the core functionality and per-100g normalization. However, it lacks a usage note referencing sibling tools, which would improve completeness given the many alternatives.

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 a single required fdcId with no description (0% schema coverage). The description references 'a FoodData Central entry' but does not explicitly define fdcId as the entry identifier or explain its format, though the context from the tool name and schema makes the intent clear.

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 (Return) and resource (FoodData Central entry) with specific nutrients (calories, protein, fat, carbs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by returning a combined macro set rather than a single nutrient.

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 usage is implied: use this tool when needing the standard per-100g macro profile. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like get_protein or get_micros, which are present in the sibling list.

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