Get a food's nutrients scaled to a serving

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the scaling behavior from per-100g basis, the %DV calculation against FDA values, and the inclusion of a citable source line. These are meaningful behavioral details that go beyond a simple 'get data' statement.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value: fdcId scoping, scaling, %DV, and source line. There is no redundant or generic wording.

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 simple two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns (full nutrient panel), how it behaves (scaling), and an extra output (source line). It does not cover error cases or return format, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity and the description's clarity.

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 documents 'grams' with a description and default, but leaves 'fdc_id' undocumented. The description clarifies that the tool targets 'one fdcId' and explains how grams are used ('scaled to the grams you ask for'), adding meaning to both parameters 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 states the verb 'get' and the resource: a full nutrient panel for a single fdcId, scaled from FDC's per-100g basis to requested grams with %DV. This specificity distinguishes it from siblings like search_foods and recipe_nutrition, and the focus on one fdcId separates it from a generic food_nutrition tool.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need nutrient data for a known fdcId, scaled to a serving size. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the context is clear and the distinction from siblings is evident.

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