get_food_chemistry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Returns' and the get_ prefix make the read-only nature reasonably clear, and the field list conveys the breadth of the payload, but there is no mention of error behavior for unknown IDs, permission requirements, or rate limits.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the action stated first, followed by an informative enumeration of returned data domains. The list is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the profile contains.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not strictly required, and the description is adequate for a simple one-parameter read. However, with no annotations and unresolved overlap with lookup_food/lookup_barcode on the same input type, the agent is left to guess which sibling to pick.

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% and the description is the only place that explains the single parameter: it accepts either an internal food ID or a packaged barcode. That adds real meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't specify accepted formats (e.g., UPC/EAN digit length), so it only partially compensates.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') plus resource ('full molecular profile') and enumerates the exact data domains returned (macros, micros, amino acids, NOVA, Nutri-Score, allergens, additives). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling tools lookup_food or lookup_barcode, which handle overlapping inputs, so 4 rather than 5.

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 never says when to call this tool instead of lookup_food or lookup_barcode, despite all three accepting food/barcode identifiers. The only hint is that it accepts either an ID or a barcode, which is implied usage rather than explicit routing guidance.

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