Resolve a product barcode

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds provenance ('ReceiptCal's trusted product source') and the no-meal-log side effect, which is useful, but says nothing about lookup failure behavior (unknown barcode) or rate/source limits.

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 tight sentence with the differentiating constraint front-loaded. No filler or restated name/title.

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 one-parameter read tool the core action is conveyed, but with no output schema the description should sketch what 'resolve' returns (matching product/nutrition data) and what happens on a miss. That return-side context is missing, leaving a moderate gap.

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 description coverage is 0%; the schema supplies only type, digit pattern, and an 8–14 length bound with no prose. The description never explains the expected barcode format or how a scanned/typed code should be supplied, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Resolve) and resource (barcode), and adds the scoping clause 'without logging a meal' that visually separates it from the sibling prepare_log_barcode. An agent can distinguish intent without opening either schema.

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 'without logging a meal' clearly signals when to pick this over the log flow, giving an implicit but readable exclusion. It stops short of naming prepare_log_barcode as the alternative or stating prerequisites (e.g. barcode must exist in the source), so it falls just below explicit when/when-not guidance.

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