Food Data Sources

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool returns license attribution requirements, which is useful content context. No contradictions are present, and the description does not overpromise. It doesn't mention response format or caching, but with strong annotations this is acceptable.

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 fragment that conveys the essential purpose without wasting words. It is relatively clear and front-loaded with the main topic (data sources), though the grammar is slightly awkward due to the missing verb.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with robust annotations, the description gives enough context: it explains what data is returned (sources and license attribution). No output schema exists, but the description communicates the tool's functionality sufficiently for an agent to select it. It could mention that it returns a list, but the use case is straightforward.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. According to the rubric, 0 params is baseline 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and none is provided.

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 tool provides available data sources and their required license attribution. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (search, get_food) by focusing on server-level data source information, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' and uses a question-style fragment.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative tool guidance is provided. The purpose is clear enough to imply usage for retrieving data source information, but exclusions against alternatives like search_capabilities are not stated. The context is implied rather than explicit.

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