analyze_food

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists the kinds of data returned (calories, macros, vitamins, minerals, allergens, dietary flags) and clarifies the input format. It does not mention potential limitations or error cases, but for a simple read-only tool, this is adequate.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, then lists return types. No 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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sufficient: it states the purpose, input format, and output contents. The sibling tool is recognizable from its name, and the description's contrast covers the main contextual need.

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 schema has 100% coverage with a clear parameter description and examples. The tool description adds extra context by specifying that input can be a name or description and that no image is needed, reinforcing and slightly expanding on the schema's meaning.

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's function: it retrieves detailed nutritional information for a food item based on a name or description. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by adding '(no image needed)', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 context by contrasting with the image-based sibling ('no image needed'). However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance beyond that implied contrast.

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