NutriBalance

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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent status, so the description appropriately focuses on return value structure rather than safety. It adds valuable context about what the action plan contains (foods with serving sizes, supplement advice, deficiency symptoms) that is not indicated in annotations or schema.

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: first sentence front-loads the purpose and return value details, second sentence provides usage triggers. 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?

Given the moderate complexity (3 parameters, simple types) and lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by detailing the expected action plan components. Could mention error handling for unsupported nutrients, but the schema enum mitigates this need.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage (nutrient, gender, age all well-documented), the baseline is 3. The description implies the nutrient parameter through 'specific nutritional deficiency' but does not add syntax details or semantic clarifications beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb-resource combination ('Get a detailed action plan to fix a specific nutritional deficiency') and clearly distinguishes this from siblings like lookup_nutrition (general lookups) and generate_meal_plan (general meal planning) by focusing specifically on deficiency correction.

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 explicit 'Use this when' guidance with three specific query patterns (increasing a nutrient, what to eat for deficiency, causes of low levels). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named sibling alternatives, but the positive guidance is clear and actionable.

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