Estimate meal

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context: 'preserve unresolved and confidence', which tells the agent that the output will include unresolved items and confidence scores. This goes beyond the annotations, though it could further detail behavior on unrecognized inputs.

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 concise sentences. The first defines the purpose, the second addresses parameters and behavior. No filler or redundancy; every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and 3 undocumented params, the description is minimal. It explains the core estimation and mentions preserving unresolved and confidence, but does not describe the output format or how optional parameters (locale, meal_type, response_format) affect behavior. Adequate for simple usage but incomplete for full agent autonomy.

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 only 40% (2 of 5 params have descriptions). The tool description only clarifies that 'text' and 'meal_text' are alternate names but adds no meaning for locale, meal_type, or response_format. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented params.

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 estimates nutrition for short meal text using local deterministic defaults, differentiating it from sibling tools like nourish_estimate_meal_photo (for images) and nourish_log_intake (for logging). The verb 'estimate' and resource 'nutrition for a short meal text' are specific.

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 quick, deterministic estimation from short text but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use (e.g., for images or multi-sentence descriptions) and does not name alternative tools. It provides clear context but no exclusions.

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