get_item_nutrition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function and gives no details about error handling (e.g., what happens if the item name is not found), whether it returns a single item or an array, or any authentication/rate-limit requirements. For a simple read tool this is a notable gap, but not severe enough for a 1.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the action and object. It is concise with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient but not complete. It states the purpose but does not specify the return structure or units (e.g., calories per serving), nor does it explain error behavior. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more detail about what the agent can expect in the response.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'item_name' with description and examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the phrase 'specific Wendy's menu item', which reinforces the need for an exact item name but adds no extra detail about format, case sensitivity, or valid values beyond what the schema already provides.

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: getting nutrition information and calorie count for a specific Wendy's menu item. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('nutrition information and calorie count'), and the phrase 'for a specific Wendy's menu item' distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_menu_items, which likely search or list items.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies the user should already know the exact item name, but it does not mention using search_menu_items first or any exclusions. There is no 'when not to use' or alternative tool reference.

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