Dietary Lookup Reference Values

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

Annotations already establish this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, lowering the burden. The description adds useful behavioral context by promising 'governed authority-specific' records and specifying that conflicts are not flattened, but it does not elaborate on pagination, filtering behavior, or conflict representation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action, resource type, and key behavioral nuance efficiently.

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?

Despite rich schema annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse for a tool with a nested request object and many optional filter fields. It does not explain when to use the lookups, how to construct the request, or what 'without flattening conflicts' means in practice.

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 parameter or filter. The phrase 'authority-specific' hints at the authority parameter, but the required substanceKey and optional filters (population, jurisdiction, referenceType, etc.) are left entirely unexplained.

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 identifies the resource ('governed authority-specific reference-value records') with a distinctive qualifier ('without flattening conflicts'), which helps distinguish it from sibling lookup/export tools. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative lookup tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dietary_lookup_contaminant_legal_limits or the various export tools. The description states only what the tool does, not the context or exclusions.

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