Dietary Select Consumption Profile

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 established. The description adds the 'governed' qualifier and specifies 'declared population and intake window' as selection criteria, but does not explain behavior when no profile matches or how preferred_profile_id affects outcomes.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No filler or repetition, making it appropriately concise for a tool with a rich schema and annotations.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, the selection behavior (e.g., how preferences and commodity codes are used) is not explained, leaving notable gaps for a tool with nested input parameters. It is adequate for a read-only selection but not fully complete.

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 fails to mention the 'request' object or any of its fields except implicitly 'population' and 'intake window'. The schema contains meaningful parameters like region_id, preferred_profile_id, and required_commodity_codes, which are left 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 'Select' and a clear resource 'governed dietary consumption profile', with qualifiers for population and intake window. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'build' or 'assess', though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dietary_build_dietary_intake_scenario or dietary_lookup_reporting_profiles. The description implies a selection workflow but does not state exclusions or prerequisites.

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