nutrition_detail

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

Discloses important behaviors: missing nutrients return null not 0, and cost per call. However, no annotations exist to cover safety or side effects. Lacks details on authentication or error handling, but sufficient for expected use.

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?

Description is well-organized with clear purpose, usage, and return details. While slightly long due to the nutrient list, it is efficiently structured and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 has an output schema (not shown but mentioned), description explains return values. It covers parameter source, cost, and missing nutrient handling. Sufficient for a single-parameter look-up tool with no complex workflows.

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 only says fdc_id is integer required. Description adds essential context: it is a USDA FoodData Central ID obtained from nutrition_search, which is critical for correct usage. With 0% schema coverage, description compensates well.

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?

Clearly states it gets the full per-100g nutrition profile for one food using an fdc_id. Distinguishes itself from siblings like nutrition_search, nutrition_compare, and nutrition_recipe by specifying its unique role.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use ('when user needs micronutrients beyond calories/protein/carbs/fat') and that fdc_id comes from nutrition_search. Also mentions cost per call, giving clear usage policy.

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