get_nutrition_scores

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'gets' scores but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The minimal description assumes a straightforward retrieval without explaining side effects or constraints.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words. Every element earns its place. Ideal conciseness for a simple retrieval tool.

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 tool with one required parameter and an existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It enumerates the specific scores returned, which is adequate for agent decision-making. Minor improvement could be minor usage context, but overall high completeness given tool simplicity.

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 input schema provides a description for the single parameter 'barcode' ('The product barcode, digits only.'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no further meaning, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and specifies exactly which scores (Nutri-Score, NOVA processing group, Eco-Score) are retrieved. This differentiates from sibling tools like get_product_by_barcode which returns broader product info, and compare_products/find_healthier_alternative which involve cross-product logic.

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 on when to use vs alternatives. However, the tool's narrow focus on three specific scores implicitly directs use when only those scores are needed. Given the simplicity of the tool (single parameter), the lack of explicit context is acceptable but leaves room for improvement.

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