rb209_field_nutrient

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the HTTP verb and resource path. It doesn't mention possible errors for invalid/missing nutrientId, whether the text could be localized or formatted, or any additional context about what 'nutrient text' means. The description is essentially a restatement of the endpoint signature with minimal added behavior.

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 short and front-loaded with the HTTP verb and path, which orients the agent quickly. Its second clause is somewhat needlessly verbose ('filtered from the supplied corresponding nutrient id') but still one concise sentence.

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 lookup tool, this is nearly complete, but there is no output schema and no annotation, so the description should clarify what 'nutrient text' is expected to be (e.g., a string label, a text block, localized names). Also, there is no mention of how to find the nutrientId or what distinguishes this from rb209_field_nutrients beyond singular vs plural. Slightly better than a tautology but leaves meaningful 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents nutrientId as 'The nutrient id to filter on'. The description adds only a slightly redundant relational phrase ('filtered from the supplied corresponding nutrient id') that echoes the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds minimal new meaning.

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 states a specific verb (GET) and resource (individual nutrient text filtered by nutrientId), clearly indicating what the tool returns. It distinguishes itself from the plural sibling rb209_field_nutrients, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling. The phrase 'filtered from the supplied corresponding nutrient id' is slightly awkward but understandable.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rb209_field_nutrients. The description implies it is for a single nutrient lookup by ID, but it never states exclusions or names alternatives. An agent must infer usage from the singular/plural contrast in sibling names.

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