Dietary Lookup Consumption Dataset Support

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no further behavioral context such as how 'governed' applies, what 'allowed-use posture' means, or any error conditions like invalid jurisdiction or missing dataset. No additional value is provided 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 no wasted words, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. The jargon-heavy phrase 'governed dietary consumption-dataset support and allowed-use posture' obscures rather than clarifies the tool's purpose. It is not merely concise; it is incomplete.

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 tool has a nested request object with required jurisdiction and optional datasetId/contaminantFamily, plus an output schema, the description should at least clarify what 'support' and 'allowed-use posture' refer to. It does not explain the input fields or provide sufficient context for the agent to decide when to use this tool. The output schema covers return structure, but the description still fails to give meaningful operational 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?

The description makes no mention of the request parameters (jurisdiction, datasetId, contaminantFamily). With schema coverage at 0%, the description was expected to explain what each parameter means, but it offers no such guidance. This leaves the agent with no semantic understanding of how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 states that the tool returns 'governed dietary consumption-dataset support and allowed-use posture,' which indicates a lookup function for consumption dataset support. However, the phrasing is vague and does not clearly distinguish this from other lookup tools like dietary_lookup_method_support or dietary_lookup_reporting_profiles. The verb 'Return' is generic, and 'posture' is ambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over sibling lookup tools. There is no context about when a consumption dataset support lookup is needed.

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