NutriBalance

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) and idempotency, so the description appropriately focuses on content-specific behavior. It discloses what data is returned by listing specific nutrients (calories, protein, carbs, fat, fibre, key micronutrients), adding valuable context beyond the annotations. No contradictions present.

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, zero waste. First sentence front-loads the specific nutrients included in the profile. Second sentence provides usage context. Every word earns its place; no redundant fluff or repetition of schema/annotation details.

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 lookup tool with rich annotations and complete input schema coverage, the description is adequate. It compensates for the missing output schema by listing the specific nutrient fields returned. Minor gap: doesn't mention error handling (e.g., food not found behavior).

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, the schema fully documents both parameters (food_name with examples, amount_grams with default). The description mentions 'by name and serving size' which maps to the parameters, but doesn't add syntax details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is comprehensive.

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 ('Look up') and resource ('nutritional profile'), explicitly listing the nutrients returned (calories, protein, carbs, fat, fibre, key micronutrients). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like calculate_tdee or generate_meal_plan by focusing on specific food lookup rather than calculations or planning.

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 second sentence provides clear positive guidance: 'Use this when someone asks about the nutrition or macros in a specific food.' However, it lacks explicit negative constraints or named alternatives (e.g., it doesn't direct users to calculate_tdee for energy expenditure calculations).

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