get_food

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds that it returns servings, calories, macros, and micronutrients, providing useful return-value context beyond the annotations. This exceeds what annotations alone offer.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and adds specific return value details. It is concise and no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by listing the return fields explicitly.

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 tool has 8 parameters (only 1 required) with low schema coverage, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is lacking in fully explaining all input options and response structure. It covers the main output categories but misses guidance on optional parameters and how results vary.

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 low at 13%, meaning most parameters have no description in the schema. The description mentions food_id as the key input but does not explain the other 7 parameters like region, language, page_number, etc. This is a gap, but the core purpose parameter is covered. Baseline adjusted to 3 due to low coverage not being fully compensated.

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 it gets nutritional information for a specific food by ID, specifying the resource (food) and the action (get). It distinguishes it from siblings like search_foods and find_food_by_barcode which are for finding foods, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_recipe or others, but the food-specific focus is clear.

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 use when you have a food ID and need detailed nutritional info, and siblings like search_foods suggest alternatives for finding foods without an ID. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention prerequisites like having a valid food_id.

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