food_by_category

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'Get...' implying read-only, but fails to disclose pagination (page parameter), rate limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond what's obvious. Minimal value added.

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?

Single sentence of 7 words, perfectly concise with no fluff. Efficiently communicates core purpose.

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?

Missing parameter explanations, no output schema, no return value description, and no differentiation from siblings. For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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 has 0% description coverage; description does not mention parameters at all. It does not explain valid categories or the page parameter's role, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone. Insufficient compensation for schema gaps.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving food products by category from Open Food Facts. It uses specific verb 'Get', resource 'food products', and method 'by category', distinguishing it from siblings like food_search and food_get_product.

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 the tool is for category-based product retrieval but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like food_search. With multiple sibling tools, lacking guidance on trade-offs reduces the score.

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