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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add context beyond the safety profile. It does: 'This only searches', how results must be reused ('pass a result's library and key exactly as food in create_meal, update_meal or a recipe ingredient'), and the important caveat that a missing match says nothing about ingredients, nutrition or allergy safety.

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 text is dense but front-loaded: the resource scope and library taxonomy come first, then usage rules, then the safety caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the query/fallback sentence is somewhat long and 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. Given six optional parameters and the open-ended search behavior, the description covers scope, library semantics, result reuse, and failure handling – nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by tying each library value (mine, composition, splot, off) to the kind of food it holds and by giving query-shaping advice ('Use a short, specific query'). It goes beyond restating the schema, though it does not document limit, offset, locale or region.

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 (find/search) and resource (foods) and immediately enumerates the four distinct content sets (own foods, generic ingredients, packaged products) with their library identifiers. An agent can distinguish it from create_meal, save_food, and delete_food without opening a schema.

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 when-to-use guidance ('search it before making a new food'), names the exact alternative libraries and their conditions, and prescribes a fallback strategy when nothing matches ('try a simpler query or another library, then ask for the label or offer a clearly marked estimate rather than searching again'). This is unusually complete routing guidance.

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