Get Food Nutrition Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds useful behavioral context: returns up to 150 nutrients, portions, etc., and sources from USDA. No contradictions found.

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?

Single sentence contains all essential information: verb, object, scope (up to 150 nutrients), and data source (USDA). No filler or redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, description does not need to detail return structure. It covers the parameter well and hints at response contents. Lacks mention of any limitations or error conditions, but sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's description and example. Since schema already documents the parameter adequately, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description starts with 'Get detailed nutrition data' – a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'health.nutrition.food_search' by focusing on detailed data for one item rather than search. It also specifies scope (up to 150 nutrients, portions, serving sizes, ingredients) and source (USDA).

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?

Description gives clear purpose but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool vs alternatives like 'health.nutrition.food_search'. The agent must infer from context that this is for getting details after obtaining an ID. No explicit when-not or guidance.

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