Dietary Compare Dietary Scenarios

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds one behavioral detail ('surface commodity-level drivers') but does not disclose that the operation requires a base and candidate summary, nor does it describe the comparison semantics. This is acceptable but not rich beyond the 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 sentence with a front-loaded active verb and no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the level of detail it provides.

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?

Despite having a rich nested input schema (CompareDietaryScenariosRequest with two DietaryIntakeSummary objects) and a likely complex output, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'commodity-level drivers' means, what the comparison outcome looks like, or any prerequisites. The schema provides structural detail but not semantic completeness.

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 should compensate. It only vaguely mentions 'scenario summaries' and does not reference the required 'request' object or its base_summary/candidate_summary fields. The schema structure is detailed but the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('dietary scenario summaries') while highlighting the unique outcome ('surface commodity-level drivers'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like dietary_compare_adapter_import_to_walkthrough. However, it does not mention that exactly two scenarios (base and candidate) are compared, leaving out a core scope detail.

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 when comparing dietary scenario summaries. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided. Given similar compare tools in the sibling list (e.g., dietary_compare_adapter_import_to_walkthrough), the description does not clarify when to prefer this tool, but the resource type gives some differentiation.

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