filter_by_nutrient

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool filters by nutrient range, without mentioning return format, pagination, sorting behavior, or any edge cases. This is minimal transparency beyond the tool's name.

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 in Chinese that front-loads the action ('filter foods by nutrient range') and includes a useful example. Every word contributes, with no redundant or filler content.

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 and the schema covers parameters well, but there is no output schema or annotation to explain what the tool returns. The description doesn't clarify whether the result is a list of food names, full nutrition profiles, or something else, leaving an important gap for invocation.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for every parameter (e.g., min/max limits, sort direction, nutrient enum). The description adds a brief example linking nutrients to min/max ranges, but this only slightly enhances the schema's already clear semantics, so a baseline 3 is warranted.

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 filters foods by nutrient range, with a concrete example (high protein, low fat). The verb 'filter' and resource 'foods' are explicit, and the nutrient-range scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_food or get_nutrition.

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 alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned, but the example ('find high protein, low fat foods') implies a use case for nutrient-based filtering. This gives some contextual guidance but does not explicitly distinguish when to use this tool over search_food or get_nutrition.

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