Get Micronutrients

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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description adds value by specifying the 'per 100 g' normalization and the nutrient range. This gives the agent important context about the output format without contradicting any 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 a single, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and output scope. The presence of an output schema means return value details don't need to be described, and the per 100g basis plus nutrient range provides the necessary context.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It does mention 'a FoodData Central entry', which implies fdcId identifies the entry, but it doesn't provide explicit detail about how the parameter is used or validated. The schema already specifies integer type and positive constraint, so the description adds minimal semantic value.

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 action ('Return') and resource ('vitamins and minerals for a FoodData Central entry'), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on macros or other nutrient groups. The parenthetical '(Calcium through B vitamins)' further clarifies the exact scope of micronutrients covered.

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 the tool is for retrieving micronutrient data per 100g, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_macros or get_macro_micros, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent could infer the appropriate use case.

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