Search USDA FoodData Central for foods by name. Returns nutrition macros for matching foods.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Food name to search (e.g. "chicken breast", "avocado") | chicken breast |
| brand | No | Filter by brand owner | |
| limit | No | Number of results (max 25) | |
| dataType | No | Filter by data type: Foundation, SR Legacy, Survey (FNDDS), Branded |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It states returns nutrition macros but doesn't detail format, limits, or side effects. Adequate but minimal for a search 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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose. Perfectly concise.
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?
Returns nutrition macros but no output schema, so return format is unclear. Parameter schemas fully described. Adequate for a simple search tool but could specify pagination or data type details.
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 has 100% parameter descriptions. The description adds 'nutrition macros' context but not specific parameter semantics beyond schema. Baseline 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 tool searches USDA FoodData Central by name and returns nutrition macros. It distinguishes from siblings: compare_foods likely compares multiple foods, get_nutrition gets details for a specific food.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool vs siblings. The purpose is implied but no exclusions or prerequisites are 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.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: searching for foods, retrieving full nutrition by ID, and comparing multiple foods. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores: search_food, get_nutrition, compare_foods.
Three tools is a minimal but reasonable set for a focused nutrition server covering search, detail, and comparison. The scope is narrow, so the count is appropriate.
Core operations are covered (search, retrieve, compare), but the compare tool is limited to protein and calorie density, missing other nutrient comparisons. Minor gap.