mfp_get_food_details

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what the response contains, including macros, micronutrients, serving sizes, and the markdown/json output choice. No contradictions with 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 well organized with a purpose statement, Args section, and Returns section. It is slightly redundant with the input schema, but it remains compact and front-loads the most important usage information.

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 read-only annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the operational prerequisites: the source of the MFP ID and the optional response format. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool 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?

Despite the low computed schema description coverage, the description still explains both mfp_id and response_format in its Args section. It adds the key detail that mfp_id comes from search results, which is essential for correct use and goes beyond the raw schema type.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed nutritional information for a specific food item by its MFP ID.' The MFP ID reference clearly scopes the tool to a lookup-by-ID operation, distinguishing it from sibling search/list 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 description states that mfp_id comes 'from search results,' which gives clear workflow context: search first, then retrieve details. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the usage context is clear enough.

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