find_substitutes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is deterministic, involves calculating equivalent amounts, checking electrolyte increments, and automatically filtering red/yellow card foods. It also explains sorting by safety score, which is valuable 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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the trigger condition and using a few sentences to convey the algorithm and key behaviors. There is no filler 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?

Given the tool has 12 parameters and an output schema, the description provides a high-level but sufficient overview of purpose, algorithm, and safety filtering. It doesn't explain every parameter, but schema descriptions cover that. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining how parameters relate, such as basis determining protein vs energy equivalence and ckd_stage affecting penalty scoring. This goes slightly beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 purpose: to find food substitutes when a parent asks what to replace. It uses a specific trigger phrase and describes the core functionality. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like can_eat or search_food.

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 explicitly says when to call: when a parent asks about substituting a missing food item. It provides clear contextual guidance but does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, though the trigger is specific enough to guide usage.

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