food_get_product

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds the third-party source ('Open Food Facts'), hinting at data completeness variability, but says nothing about not-found behavior, rate limits, or coverage gaps that a caller of an external database needs.

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?

A single clean sentence with the action and key front-loaded. No wasted phrasing, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with annotations covering safety and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. It stops short of telling the agent what happens on a missing/unknown barcode or what fields the product record will contain.

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 convey that the single parameter is a barcode, but it doesn't specify format (e.g., EAN/UPC digits, checksum) or whether leading zeros matter, leaving the actual value semantics thin.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('food product'), source ('Open Food Facts'), and the lookup key ('by barcode'). The 'by barcode' phrase implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling food_search, but it doesn't name that alternative explicitly.

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 phrase 'by barcode' implies it should be used when you already have a barcode, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of the food_search or food_by_category alternatives for discovery-style lookups.

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