lookup_food

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: the search spans three named databases and returns food IDs plus per-100g macro previews (i.e., partial data, not full chemistry). It does not mention matching/fuzzy behavior, result ordering, rate limits, or how region affects which databases are consulted.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the search scope is front-loaded and the return format follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema lowers the bar on return values, but with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves limit, region, and the search-then-retrieve workflow unexplained. For a 3-parameter tool with a regional data source, that is a real gap.

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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters — but it says nothing about query semantics, the meaning of limit (default 5), or what values region accepts and how 'global' versus a regional source like ICMR-NIN IFCT changes results. Naming the databases faintly implies regional variance but explains no parameter.

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+resource ('searches food chemistry databases') and names the three concrete data sources (ICMR-NIN IFCT, USDA, Open Food Facts). It is distinguishable from get_food_chemistry (detail retrieval) and lookup_barcode (barcode entry), though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent must infer that this is the discovery step that yields food IDs for a later get_food_chemistry call, and nothing tells it when to prefer lookup_barcode instead.

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