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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds that it opens nothing by itself and returns screens/buttons/fields, which is valuable behavioral context. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but those are less relevant for a guide tool.

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 core is front-loaded and clear, but the final API sentence is redundant ('Fitatu's official API: Fitatu has no public API') and the ChatGPT/Claude phrasing is unnecessary. It could be tightened.

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 zero-parameter guide tool with no output schema, the description explains what it returns and what to do next. It also notes the lack of an official API, which prevents an agent from expecting direct API access. Complete enough.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because none exist.

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 it searches food in the user's Fitatu account, but immediately clarifies that it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the search. It distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* tools that actually execute the steps. The name 'search_food' is slightly misleading, but the body resolves it.

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 explicitly says to use cotlet_browser_* tools in the Fitatu Cloud Browser after getting the steps, which is a clear alternative. It does not compare against fitatu_log_food or other Fitatu siblings, but the guide-vs-execution split is clear.

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