mfp_list_own_foods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the 'newest first' ordering, the unreliability of private foods in search_food, and the return fields (id, description, brand, calories). This enhances transparency without contradicting the 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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement, a brief contextual note, and a compact Args/Returns format. Every sentence contributes essential information, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, ordering, use case, and return format, which is adequate for a relatively simple read-only list operation with strong annotations. It lacks details on pagination or exact output formatting, but the limit parameter and return description cover the essentials. Overall, it is complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It merely lists 'search, limit, response_format' without elaborating on their meaning or constraints. Though the schema itself contains descriptions, the description does not add semantic value beyond the parameter names, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: 'the user's own custom foods,' with an explicit ordering constraint ('newest first'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool mfp_search_food by noting that private custom foods do not reliably surface there, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Private custom foods do not reliably surface in mfp_search_food, so this is the way to find the id of something previously created.' It names the alternative (mfp_search_food) and the specific use case (finding IDs of previously created custom foods), effectively communicating when and why this tool should be chosen.

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