get_nutrition_scores

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the return structure (categories, consumed amounts, confidence levels). It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits, but the annotations cover the key safety aspects.

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 five sentences, front-loading the main purpose and including an 'Args:' section. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted wording.

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 optional parameter, output schema exists), the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and when to use it. It does not need to describe return values because the output schema handles that.

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 has zero description coverage, but the description explains the single parameter 'date' with format 'YYYY-MM-DD' and default behavior ('defaults to today'). This adds essential meaning that the schema alone does not provide.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'nutrition scores', and elaborates on what it returns (per-nutrient consumed amounts, category grades). It distinguishes itself from siblings by calling itself the 'richest nutrition endpoint' and specifying when to use it.

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 explicitly says 'use it when you need to know both how much of each nutrient was consumed AND how close each is to the target.' This provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not name specific alternatives or state when not to use it.

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