compare_foods

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by disclosing the per-100g normalization and the 2-5 ID constraint, but it does not explain what 'compare' means in output terms (e.g., side-by-side table, differences) or address error handling, which is a notable gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 core action and includes essential constraints. Every word earns its place, with no redundant fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the key functional context: the comparison basis (per 100g) and input size limits. However, it omits what the response looks like (e.g., array of nutrient comparisons), which would be useful given the lack of an output schema. Still, for a straightforward comparison tool, the description is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (food_ids is described as '食物ID数组' and already has minItems/maxItems constraints). The description redundantly states 'provide 2-5 food IDs', adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter details.

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: comparing nutritional components of multiple foods per 100g. It specifies a concrete verb ('对比' / compare), resource (foods' nutritional components), and scope (per 100g), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_nutrition (likely single-food) and list_nutrients.

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 by specifying input requirements (2-5 food IDs), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives like get_nutrition for single foods or filter_by_nutrient for filtering by nutrient, leaving usage context only implied.

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