Dietary Lookup Metals Occurrence

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 clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context; 'without implying a native exposure engine' hints at a limitation but does not describe output characteristics, data scope, or any operational constraints beyond what the annotations provide.

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, but it is vague and clunky. The phrase 'without implying a native exposure engine' is an unclear disclaimer that does not earn its place, and the sentence fails to communicate a clear, concise purpose.

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 large set of sibling lookup tools and the existence of an output schema, the description should clarify what 'metals occurrence' means in this context, what 'monitoring support' includes, and how this tool differs from related ones like dietary_lookup_occurrence_evidence. None of that context is provided, making the description incomplete for effective selection.

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 mentions no parameter names or meanings. The required contaminantFamily enum and optional authority/jurisdiction fields are left entirely unexplained, forcing the agent to guess their semantics from names alone.

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 verb 'Return' and identifies a resource ('governed metals occurrence and monitoring support'), but the resource is vague and the negative clause 'without implying a native exposure engine' does not clarify what the tool actually does. It also does not distinguish this tool from sibling lookup tools like dietary_lookup_occurrence_evidence or dietary_lookup_metals_review_focus.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about intended use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The disclaimer about not implying a native exposure engine is more confusing than actionable.

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