Dietary Lookup Reporting Profiles

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a little context by noting the return is 'governed' and includes 'optional advisory extensions', hinting at the response's nature, but it doesn't disclose details about pagination, authorization, or effects. This is a moderate contribution beyond 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 sentence with no filler; it states the verb and object directly. Every word adds meaning, front-loading the core function.

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 having an output schema and annotations, the description is too terse for a tool with a nested request object and several optional filters. It doesn't mention the required contaminantFamily parameter or explain how optional filters like jurisdiction or matrixGroup affect results. The tool name hints at 'reporting profiles', but the description doesn't tie the parameters to the returned conventions. Therefore, the description is inadequate for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema is completely undocumented (0% coverage), and the description does not mention any of the parameters (contaminantFamily, authority, matrixGroup, jurisdiction). Since the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, the agent gets no help understanding what these parameters mean or how to use them.

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 a concrete resource: 'governed reporting-profile conventions' with 'optional advisory extensions'. This distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools like dietary_lookup_reference_values or dietary_lookup_contaminant_legal_limits, though the phrase 'reporting-profile conventions' is somewhat specialized.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any specific scenario, exclusions, or alternative tool names, unlike well-calibrated examples that name alternatives.

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