List the full ingredient chip catalogue

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that results are cached for 7 days and that the tool is browser-driven with a 5-8s first call, which are useful behavioral insights beyond a basic list operation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: complete catalogue, cache duration, and latency expectation. 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?

With no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, caching, and performance, which is solid for a simple list tool. It lacks details about the return format or potential pagination, but the information provided is sufficient for basic 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by giving item counts for canine adult (79) and noting 51 are one-pot-compatible. This partially explains the 'species' and 'one_pot_only' parameters, though it does not cover all enum values.

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 lists the complete ingredient chip catalogue for a species, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'full catalogue' versus recipe generation, calorie calculation, or food search.

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?

Usage is implied: it is for retrieving the complete catalogue for a species, but no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives is given. The description does not state 'for filtered search use search_foods' or similar exclusions.

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