Nourish capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is safe and non-destructive. The description adds context about the content of the response (workflows, providers, recommended tools) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like response format or pagination.

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?

A single, concise sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose without extraneous words. It is appropriately front-loaded for quick scanning.

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?

Given the tool's role as a capabilities overview and the lack of an output schema, the description is somewhat vague about what exactly is returned. It does not specify the structure or format of the output, which may leave an agent uncertain about how to parse the response.

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 0%; no description of the 'response_format' parameter is provided in the schema. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from the enum alone. This is insufficient given the low coverage.

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 purpose: to describe supported nutrition workflows, providers, and recommended first tools. It uses a specific verb ('Describe') and resource, and it distinguishes this tool from the many action-oriented sibling tools.

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 usage is implied: the tool is for obtaining an overview of capabilities. However, no explicit guidance is provided on when to use it versus alternative tools or when not to use it.

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