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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Search' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and 'Returns nutrition macros' explains the outcome. However, it lacks details on result pagination, ordering, rate limits, or whether it returns multiple matches vs a single item. The behavior is basic but not fully transparent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns. It states 'nutrition macros' but not the specific structure (e.g., a list, fields like calories/protein). It also doesn't mention defaults or the search behavior (matches vs exact). The schema covers inputs well, but the output description is vague, leaving the tool incomplete for an agent.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds only the phrase 'by name', which loosely maps to the 'q' parameter but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Therefore, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the verb 'Search' and the resource 'USDA FoodData Central' with the scope 'by name'. It also notes the primary output (nutrition macros). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_nutrition, which also deals with nutrition data, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention compare_foods or get_nutrition, nor any prerequisite or context like 'use this to find foods before getting nutrition details'. There is no when/when-not language, so it offers no usage direction.

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