APIbase

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

While annotations declare read-only/idempotent safety, the description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the data richness ('up to 150 nutrients') and content types returned (portions, serving sizes, ingredients), which helps set expectations for output volume.

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 single-sentence description is front-loaded with the core action, uses the em-dash effectively to append specific data categories without fluff, and every clause (including the USDA parenthetical and nutrient count) earns its place by aiding disambiguation.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return data categories (nutrients, portions, serving sizes, ingredients). Combined with comprehensive annotations, this provides sufficient context for a single-parameter lookup tool.

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 for the single 'fdc_id' parameter, the baseline is 3. The description mentions '(USDA)' which aligns with the parameter's context, but this largely restates information already present in the schema's parameter description.

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 ('Get') and resource ('nutrition data for a food item'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'nutrition.fatsecret.details' and 'health.nutrition.food_search' by specifying the USDA source and quantitative depth ('up to 150 nutrients').

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?

Usage is implied by the single required 'fdc_id' parameter (suggesting this is for specific ID lookups rather than searches), but the description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus the sibling 'health.nutrition.food_search' tool.

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