get_alternatives

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It does disclose the conversion methodology (equal protein/equal energy), which is useful and beyond what the schema shows. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as handling of unknown foods, limit behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. The description is not misleading, but it has gaps.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes a useful detail about conversion rules. There is no redundant information or filler, making it highly 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?

For a relatively simple tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and conversion logic. However, given the 0% parameter coverage and lack of explicit usage guidance, the description is not fully complete. It leaves some important aspects to be inferred or discovered from the schema.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implicitly refers to the food name through '某食物' but does not explicitly identify the parameter 'food_name' or explain the 'limit' parameter. The limit parameter is completely unaddressed, leaving the agent to guess its meaning from 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's function: it provides equivalent substitutions for a given food, with specific conversion rules (equal protein for protein sources, equal energy for staples/oils). The verb '给出' (give) and the resource '某食物的同类等效替代' make the purpose specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_food or get_food_profile by focusing on alternatives.

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 the tool is for finding substitutions but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites or contrasting with sibling tools like search_food. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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