Food Ingredient Nutrition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It lists the nutrient fields returned but does not discuss pagination behavior, error cases, or the structure of the results beyond a simple list. The description adds some value but is not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a list of nutrients. The most important information (search function, examples, return fields) is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value with no 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 tool's simplicity (two-parameter search), the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how it differs from alternatives. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return format details. However, it does not mention what happens if no results are found or any limitations of the database.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (name and limit). The description adds example values but no additional semantic information beyond what the schema offers. With 100% schema coverage, a 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search 1.28M food ingredients by name', includes specific examples (chicken breast, rice, banana, oats), and lists the returned nutrition fields. It also distinguishes itself from potential siblings like nutrition.fatsecret.search by mentioning broader international coverage and complementing USDA FDC.

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 provides clear context: it is used for searching food ingredients by name to get nutrition per 100g. It hints at alternatives ('Complements USDA FDC'), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to similar siblings like spoonacular.ingredients.search.

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