lookup_food_nutrients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the warning behavior (high potassium/phosphate alerts) and the dual portion scope, but does not mention error handling, validation, or explicitly confirm read-only nature. Some behavioral context is provided, but it is not comprehensive.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and unique warning feature. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value details are covered. However, the description lacks clarification for the 'cooking' parameter and provides no usage guidance relative to siblings. For a tool with moderate complexity and no annotations, the description is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'portion' parameter by mentioning '指定份量' (specified portion), but the 'cooking' parameter is entirely unexplained, and no value formats or examples are given. This partial coverage is insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 a specific lookup action ('查询') targeting food nutrients (energy, protein, potassium, phosphorus, sodium) per 100g and specified portion, with an additional warning output. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on calculations, substitutions, conversions, or interactions.

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 implies its use for retrieving nutrient information with high K/P warnings, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or comparative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool's name and sibling names.

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