get_food_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only fetch via 'Get' and describes the return content, but it does not disclose behavior for invalid IDs, missing data, or whether any broader side effects exist. The description is adequate but not richly transparent.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple single-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it says what the tool returns and where the input comes from. It lacks explicit exclusion criteria or error/edge-case behavior, but the low complexity keeps the gap minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains food_id as 'The food item ID from search results'. The description reinforces this by naming search_food as the source, but adds little beyond the structured schema definition.

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 clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource: detailed nutrition information and serving sizes for a specific food item. It specifically references food IDs from search_food results, which differentiates it from nearby tools like get_nutrition_summary or search_food.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: after search_food, to retrieve detailed nutrition data for a specific item. It gives a concrete prerequisite but does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools it competes with, so it falls just short of a 5.

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