Dietary Lookup Contaminant Legal Limits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying that returned limits are 'governed' and are not borrowed from other authorities. This is valuable and not present in the structured 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 efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. The key qualifiers 'governed', 'jurisdiction-specific', and 'without borrowing from other authorities' are front-loaded and contribute directly to tool selection and invocation.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover side effects, the minimal description is largely sufficient for a read-only lookup tool. However, it omits guidance on the required contaminantFamily and the distinction between authority and jurisdiction, which are central to correct invocation. Despite this, the presence of structured schema and annotations raises the completeness above a minimal viable score.

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% and the description does not explain the required contaminantFamily parameter or optional filters like authority, jurisdiction, matrixGroup, substanceKey, or commodityCode. The only hint is 'jurisdiction-specific', which loosely maps to the jurisdiction parameter but does not compensate for the total lack of parameter documentation.

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 the specific verb 'Return' and names a precise resource: 'governed jurisdiction-specific contaminant legal limits'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools like dietary_lookup_occurrence_evidence or dietary_lookup_reference_values. The qualifier 'without borrowing from other authorities' adds a unique scope that further separates it from other tools.

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?

Usage is implied from the tool name and description: it is for retrieving legal limits for contaminants. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or mention competing lookup tools. The phrase 'without borrowing from other authorities' gives a hint about selection criteria but not enough for clear guidance.

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