mfp_get_food_details

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

The annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness, so the description need not repeat those. It adds useful behavioral detail by enumerating what the response includes: calories, macros, fiber, sugar, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, minerals, and serving sizes.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a concise breakdown of return contents and a structured Args/Returns section. A small amount of repetition exists between the nutrition list and the Returns section, but overall it is economical and well-organized.

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 read-only, idempotent lookup tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, and output shape adequately. It could mention behavior for invalid or unknown MFP IDs, but that is a minor gap given the annotations and output schema already provide strong context.

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?

The description explicitly documents both parameters, including that mfp_id comes from search results and that response_format selects 'markdown' or 'json'. This fully compensates for the stated 0% schema description coverage, even though the schema itself also includes descriptions.

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 first sentence states a specific verb, 'Get detailed nutritional information', and a specific resource, 'a specific food item by its MFP ID'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like mfp_search_food (searching) and mfp_add_food_to_diary (logging).

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 explicitly connects mfp_id to 'search results', implying this tool is used after a search and before logging or editing food. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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