get_nutrition_batch

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: partial batch failures are returned alongside successful items, missing macros come back null with caveats and affect totals, and totals are always computed server-side so the agent must not sum itself. It also warns about the specific misuse of burying flagged items. These are significant behavioral traits beyond what any schema would convey.

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 long but every sentence earns its place for a tool with complex failure and computation semantics. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then systematically covers failure handling, summary reading, missing data, and totals. The structure is logical and the prose is dense without wasted words.

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 description covers the most critical aspects: failure handling, null handling, server-side totals, and target behavior. However, it does not specify the full response structure (e.g., exact fields of summary and totals beyond those mentioned) or any limits like pagination. Given there is no output schema, a bit more completeness would be ideal, but the core pitfalls are well covered.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the target parameter: passing it gives totals.outcomes, otherwise every macro reads 'no target'. However, it does not describe the structure of reqs beyond implying it is a list of ingredients, nor the fields within each NutritionRequest. The compensation is partial: target semantics are clarified, but reqs semantics are left to the schema's type definitions.

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 explicitly states this is the batch version of get_nutrition for multiple ingredients, and distinguishes it from the single-item sibling by advising to use it instead of a loop. The verb-resource pair (get nutrition for multiple ingredients) is specific and unambiguous, and it clearly separates from siblings like search_foods.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use this instead of calling get_nutrition in a loop' and explains the performance benefit. It also gives detailed operational instructions on reading the summary to avoid missing flagged items, and how to pass the target once for the whole plate to get outcomes, including the consequence of not passing it. This is abundant usage direction.

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