swiss_food_nutrition_database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it returns 'nutritional values' but doesn't describe response format, whether it requires an API key (note sibling swiss_set_api_key and swiss_check_setup exist), pagination/limits, or query language specifics (e.g., does it need exact names, does it handle partial matches). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the key purpose without waste. It's front-loaded with the primary action ('Search') and identifies the authoritative source (FSVO). Appropriate length for a single-parameter search tool.

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 search tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, given that sibling tools include swiss_set_api_key and swiss_check_setup, it would be helpful to note whether authentication is required. The description is complete for the core search function but lacks operational context that would help the agent use it correctly.

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 100%, and the single param 'query' has a description with examples ('gruyère', 'fondue', 'rösti'). The baseline 3 is appropriate since the parameter is well documented in the schema and the description adds minimal additional semantics beyond noting it searches Swiss food items.

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 verb ('Search'), the resource ('Swiss Food Composition Database (FSVO)'), and the scope ('official nutritional values of foods available in Switzerland'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like Swiss food_search_products which likely searches marketplace products rather than official nutritional databases.

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 it's for looking up nutritional values of Swiss foods, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs swiss_food_search_products or provide exclusions (e.g., not for packaged products, only for composition values). The distinction from sibling food tools is only implied, not stated.

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