check_ingredient

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

Discloses return structure (verdict, evidence tier, citation, per-lens breakdown, human_url). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It is transparent but could explicitly state read-only nature.

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 front-load the purpose. Second sentence is long but packs critical usage details. Could be slightly more concise, but no extraneous information.

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?

Fully explains what the tool returns for a lookup, including condition-aware features and human_url. No output schema exists, but description covers key outputs. Appropriate for a lookup tool with no destructive effects.

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?

Adds significant meaning beyond the schema: explains difference between `lens` and `lenses`, max 5 for lenses, and the resulting per-lens breakdown. Schema descriptions are complete (100% coverage), yet the description enriches them.

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?

Clearly states verb 'look up' and resource 'ingredient in Clarity's condition-aware database'. Specifies return fields and condition lens mechanism, differentiating it from siblings like scan_barcode or check_interaction by its condition-aware nature.

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?

Provides clear guidance on using `lenses` array for multiple conditions vs `lens` for single, including a profile-shaped checking example. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives for other ingredient queries.

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