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

Annotations indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and open world. The description adds behavioral context by stating the search scope (2.3M+ items, 190+ countries) and the returned fields (ID, name, type, brand, per-serving summary). 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 two well-structured sentences. The first sentence captures the core purpose and scope, and the second sentence explains the output and provides a hint for next steps. No unnecessary words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, input (search by name), and output summary. It also gives a usage hint for further detail, making it complete for a search tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description reiterates the query parameter but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema examples.

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 specifies the verb 'search', the resource '2.3M+ food items', and the scope including branded products, restaurant meals, and generic foods from 190+ countries. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool (nutrition.fatsecret.details) by noting to use food_id for detailed 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?

The description clearly indicates when to use this tool (search by name for broad results) and implicitly suggests using the details tool for more information. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the details tool.

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