Search Fitatu Food by Barcodes

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses parallel execution, the 10-item cap, one minimal result group per input barcode, input-order preservation, and duplicate handling. This gives an agent accurate expectations about behavior and output shape without contradicting any annotation.

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?

Three sentences cover scope, return behavior, and workflow, with no filler or repetition. The core action and constraints are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 rich annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: parallel lookup, ordering, duplicates, and the handoff to add_meal_items. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 describes all three parameters clearly, so the description adds little per-parameter detail. It usefully explains that results are grouped per barcode, but this is return-shape guidance rather than new parameter semantics; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Searches'), a precise resource ('Fitatu's public food catalog'), and concrete constraints ('up to 10 GTIN barcodes in parallel'). It also deliberately separates this from add_meal_items by stating it 'only searches and never adds food,' making the tool's identity unambiguous.

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 locates the tool in a workflow: search first, then copy productId and measureId into add_meal_items. It explicitly excludes the adding behavior, but it does not name the sibling search_food as the alternative for non-barcode queries, so the guidance is clear though not exhaustive.

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