Get Saturated Fat

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

Adds meaningful context beyond the readOnly and idempotent hints by disclosing the per-100g basis and the single-value output design to minimize context. It does not contradict the annotations and avoids unnecessary details for a simple read operation.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core behavior and intent, with no redundant words. Every phrase 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?

For a tool with one parameter, a known output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description sufficiently covers the essential behavior and purpose. The output format is left to the schema, which is appropriate.

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 only parameter fdcId is self-explanatory, but with 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explicitly explain what fdcId represents or how to obtain it. The phrase 'for a FoodData Central entry' implies the ID refers to an entry, but that is indirect and minimal.

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?

States it returns saturated fat per 100g for a FoodData Central entry, a specific verb-resource pair that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_fats or get_macros. The per-100g normalization is explicit and useful.

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?

Implicitly indicates use when only saturated fat is needed, and the phrase 'to minimize context usage' provides a rationale for selecting this tool over more comprehensive ones. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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