is_food_safe_to_eat

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and idempotent. The description adds important behavioral context: the result is a guideline, not a definitive safety check, and it emphasizes relying on sensory checks. This is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences: the first effectively summarizes the tool's input and output, and the second provides a critical usage caveat. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (status and reasoning). It also references the sibling 'list_supported_foods' for valid inputs. For a simple safety-check tool, it provides complete context for proper use.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description repeats the parameter roles but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: given a food item, days since storage, and storage method, it returns a safety status per USDA guidelines. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_food_shelf_life' by focusing on immediate safety assessment rather than shelf life duration.

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 includes a clear caveat that the tool is not a substitute for sensory checks, guiding when not to rely on it. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool over sibling tools like 'get_food_shelf_life' or 'get_food_storage_tips'.

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