Nourish connection status

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states 'without returning secrets,' which is critical for an agent to know this is a safe read operation. Annotations already mark it as readOnly and idempotent, but the description reinforces safety and lists data sources.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly conveys the action and scope with no extraneous details. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter and no output schema. The description lists data sources but does not describe the output format or structure. For a simple status check, this is adequate but not fully complete; the agent might need to understand the response format.

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 input schema has one parameter (response_format) with enum and default, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention this parameter or explain its effect on output. While the parameter is simple, the description fails to add any value over the raw schema.

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 'Report' and identifies the specific resources: local storage, fixture, USDA, and Open Food Facts. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on readiness status, not data manipulation or retrieval.

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 usage for checking readiness but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nourish_capabilities or nourish_privacy_audit. No guidance on exclusions or prerequisites is provided.

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