explore_foods_get_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing: the 'read-only' keyword hints at a safe read, but pagination behavior, default ordering (orderDirection defaults to 'desc'), permission requirements, and result shape are never disclosed. For a paginated listing endpoint this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded first clause is fine, but the body is dominated by a ~50-term keyword dump that repeats the tool name and its sub-words. That bulk adds no information an agent can act on and obscures the single useful detail (the endpoint).

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?

A 9-parameter paginated list tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more than a title and a URL. Nothing explains pagination mechanics, ordering defaults, search semantics, or what a food record contains, so an agent cannot invoke or interpret this confidently.

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 description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Only group_slug is indirectly conveyed through the URL path template; page, perPage, search, orderBy, queryFilter, paginationSeed, orderDirection, and orderByNullPosition are entirely undocumented anywhere. The 'search/find' keywords refer to the tool name, not the search parameter.

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?

States a verb+resource ('List foods') and shows the backing endpoint GET /api/explore/groups/{group_slug}/foods, so the basic purpose is clear. However, 'Explore: Foods' is largely a restatement of the tool name, and it never distinguishes this from close siblings like recipes_foods_get_all or explore_foods_get_one. The trailing keyword block is name-variant filler, not a statement of scope.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent is left to infer from the URL path that this is a group-scoped explore listing versus the group-level recipes_foods_get_all. The keyword list ('search food', 'browse foods') is alias padding, not usage direction.

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