Find Better Food Alternatives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true. The description adds that it returns alternatives with improvement and tradeoff, disclosing the output structure beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 two sentences plus a Japanese translation, front-loaded with the main action and outcome. No filler, efficient.

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?

The description covers the main purpose but lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of improvement/tradeoff) since no output schema exists. It is complete for a simple tool but could be improved with more specifics on what is returned.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions; it includes bilingual text and examples like 'tuna mayo onigiri' but this is minimal. Parameter semantics are adequately covered by the schema.

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 finds alternatives for a food along a chosen axis (higher protein, lower calorie, lower sodium) and returns each with improvement and tradeoff. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_food or analyze_meal.

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 usage for finding dietary alternatives based on nutritional goals. While it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, the sibling list context helps differentiate. It is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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