get_food_details

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds context about the full nutrient profile and measure_ids, but it does not describe further behavioral traits such as error cases or data availability. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The Args section adds provenance for the only parameter without excessive repetition.

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 single parameter, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It also explains the important workflow relationship with search_foods and add_food_entry, which would otherwise be ambiguous.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for food_id. It does so by specifying 'Food ID from search_foods results,' which gives the agent the essential source and provenance of the parameter beyond the bare integer type.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed food information including nutrition and serving sizes.' It adds the key deliverable, 'full nutrient profile and available measure_ids,' and implicitly distinguishes itself from search_foods by being the follow-up detail lookup.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: 'Use this after search_foods' and explains that the output is 'needed for add_food_entry.' This clearly positions the tool in a workflow, though it does not explicitly list when-not-to-use alternatives.

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