get_food

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only cardinality (one product), saying nothing about behavior when the id is not found, how the snapshot parameter affects results, or what include_off changes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial 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 single fragment is front-loaded and wastes no words, which fits the conciseness dimension. But its brevity crosses into under-specification rather than disciplined economy, so it cannot score highly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a three-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves two parameters and all failure/mutation behavior undocumented, which is inadequate for correct invocation.

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 0% across three parameters. The description clarifies only product_id by naming it a 'fooddb id', which adds slight meaning beyond the schema title 'Product Id'. The snapshot and include_off parameters are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 fragment 'One product by its fooddb id' identifies the resource (a product) and the lookup key (fooddb id), so the core operation is inferable. However, it omits an explicit verb and does nothing to separate it from close siblings such as get_product_by_barcode or get_record_product. Purpose is understandable but minimally specified.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the eight sibling tools. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the id-based lookup versus the barcode-based one.

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