Dietary Lookup Metals Review Focus

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 one useful behavioral note: the tool returns records and does not perform exposure modeling. However, the 'metals' description conflicts with the schema's broad contaminantFamily enum, creating confusion about what records are actually returned. Since the description adds a caveat but also introduces an inconsistency, a middle score is appropriate.

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 of about a dozen words, with no filler or redundancy. It fits in a glance and is efficiently written. However, conciseness does not compensate for missing substance.

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 lookup with a required nested request object, five optional filters, and an enum, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain what makes a 'review record,' how the filters interact, which contaminant families are accepted, or how this differs from similar lookup tools. The mismatch between the 'metals' wording and the broad enum further reduces completeness. Even with an output schema present, the description fails to orient the agent adequately.

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 mention any of the five parameters (authority, focusFood, jurisdiction, commodityGroup, contaminantFamily). Parameter names and the contaminantFamily enum provide some self-evident structure, but required fields and acceptable values are not explained. The description's 'commodity-focus' phrase indirectly points to commodityGroup, but that's too implicit. With zero coverage and no compensation, this is below adequate.

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 ('Return') and resource ('governed metals commodity-focus review records'), so the primary action is clear. However, it is partially misleading because the input schema's contaminantFamily enum includes non-metal families like pesticide_residue and microplastics, making the 'metals' qualifier inaccurate. The caveat 'without implying a native exposure engine' adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling lookup tools. It mentions 'review records' and 'commodity-focus,' which hints at a niche, but there is no explicit alternative selection or context such as 'use this for X, and dietary_lookup_metals_occurrence for Y.' The 'without implying...' phrase is a caveat about behavior, not a selection guideline.

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