Get amino acid profile of a food

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint; the description supplies the genuinely non-obvious behaviors: sparse coverage (26 foods) and that missing data yields available:false with a list of foods that do have it — explicitly 'not zero'. That prevents the agent from misreading absence as a zero value, which is the highest-risk failure mode here.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the payload definition and the unit basis come first, the coverage caveat second. Every clause carries information the agent needs before calling.

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?

With an output schema present, return shape needn't be described, and the safety profile is covered by readOnlyHint. Purpose, units, id provenance and the sparse-data failure mode are all stated, so nothing material is missing 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents food_id provenance, the grams basis and the nutrients enum. The description's 'per 100 g or scaled to grams' and 'one TACO food by id' merely restate the schema's own 'omit for the table basis of 100 g' semantics rather than adding new detail.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Amino acid profile ... of one TACO food by id') and scopes it with units ('per 100 g or scaled to grams'). The enumerated examples (lysine, leucine, tryptophan) plus the 'TACO food by id' framing separate it cleanly from get_nutrients, get_fatty_acids and calc_meal.

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 gives a real applicability condition — only 26 foods carry this data — which tells the agent when the call will succeed. However, it never names an alternative path (e.g. get_nutrients for the general case) or says what to do after receiving available:false, so the routing decision is left implicit.

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