search_foodSearch Japanese foods by name (Japanese or romaji-free text). Returns candidates with nutrition per 100g, source, and disclaimer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 5) | |
| query | Yes | Food name in Japanese, e.g. "鶏むね肉" or "ごはん" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include 'nutrition per 100g, source, and disclaimer', which is helpful. However, it does not describe response structure, pagination, or any other behavioral traits, leaving gaps for the agent.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by output details. Every sentence is informative and there is no unnecessary text.
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, the description covers the main purpose and output highlights. However, without an output schema, more detail on the return format would be beneficial. The sibling relationship is not addressed, slightly reducing completeness.
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 descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds minimal value beyond confirming the 'query' parameter accepts Japanese or romaji text, which is already implied by the schema 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 clearly states that the tool searches Japanese foods by name, specifying the verb 'search' and resource 'Japanese foods'. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'get_nutrition', missing the chance to clarify when to use this tool vs the alternative.
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 implies usage for searching foods by name but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling 'get_nutrition' is present but not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one for searching foods by name, the other for retrieving detailed nutrition facts for a specific food ID. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: search_food and get_nutrition. The naming is predictable and clear.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal for a food database. While it may serve a basic query need, the thin toolset borders on inadequate for broader use.
The domain is querying Japanese food nutrition, but search_food already returns nutrition per 100g, making get_nutrition potentially redundant. Missing features like category filtering or recipe lookup are notable gaps.