Dietary Lookup Occurrence Evidence

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a little context with 'governed' and 'supported contaminant monitoring families,' but it does not explain what 'governed' means, filtering behavior, or any constraints beyond the schema. It does not contradict 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 8-word sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning and there is no filler or redundancy.

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's moderate complexity (nested request object, multiple optional filters, an enum) and a large sibling context, the description is too sparse. It lacks usage guidance, parameter semantics, and clarification of key terms like 'governed' or 'occurrence-evidence.' While annotations and output schema cover some safety and return details, the description does not fill in gaps left by the 0% schema coverage.

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 says nothing about parameters. The required 'request' object's fields (e.g., analyte, authority, matrixGroup) are not explained, so the agent cannot determine what values to supply or how they affect results. The description adds zero parameter meaning beyond the schema's structure.

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 names a distinct resource ('governed occurrence-evidence records') with a scope ('supported contaminant monitoring families'). This distinguishes it from sibling lookups like dietary_lookup_contaminant_legal_limits or dietary_lookup_metals_occurrence, though it could be more explicit about the exact families covered.

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 the many sibling lookup/export tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name and the parameter schema.

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