get_food_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is queried and returned (nutrients and classification) but does not mention error handling, exact-match behavior, or any side effects. As a read-only query, this is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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 primary purpose and includes a list of included nutrients. Every word is informative, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

An output schema is present, so return values do not need explanation. The description covers the tool's core function sufficiently for invocation. However, it does not clarify how this tool relates to food-related siblings (search_food, get_alternatives), which would enhance contextual completeness. Given the simple single-parameter nature, it is mostly complete.

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 provides no description for food_name (0% coverage). The description's reference to '某食物' (a certain food) gives semantic meaning to the parameter, indicating it identifies the food to query. However, it does not specify name format, exact match, or case sensitivity, so it only partially compensates for the schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool queries complete nutrient data and kidney patient classification for a specific food, listing the specific nutrients included. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like search_food (searching for foods) and get_alternatives (finding 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 usage when detailed nutrient and kidney classification data for a food is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer from the purpose.

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