get_nutrition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds the behavioral detail that results are normalized per 100g, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, any rate limits, or the return structure, leaving 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 action, input requirement, and unit. No wasted words.

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 one-parameter get operation, the description adequately explains what is returned (complete nutrition per 100g) and the prerequisite (using search_food). The absence of an output schema and annotations is acceptable for such a simple tool, though more detail could be added.

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 describes food_id as '食物ID' with full coverage. The description adds context that the ID is obtained from search_food and that nutrition is provided per 100g, enriching parameter meaning beyond 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 specifies the tool's function: retrieving complete nutrition information per 100g for a given food identified by an ID. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing search_food as the source for the ID and focuses on nutrition retrieval.

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?

It states the required input (food_id) and how to obtain it (via search_food), providing direct usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over compare_foods or filter_by_nutrient, though the purpose is clear.

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