search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the same parameter switches between two entirely different result types, and results are summaries that must be expanded with `fetch`. It says nothing about result counts, ranking, or how ambiguous input like a food literally named "today" is resolved.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the two-mode rule in the first two sentences, and the Args block adds a compact restatement of the query semantics. Slightly redundant with the body but short enough that nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists and `fetch` is named for full reads, so return values do not need explaining here. For a single-parameter tool with rich annotations, the remaining gap is only the absence of any note on result limits or how it relates to search_foods.

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 coverage is 0% and there is one parameter, so the description must carry the meaning — and it does, enumerating accepted value forms (YYYY-MM-DD, "today", "yesterday", or a food name) and what each triggers. It leaves matching behavior for name queries (exact vs partial vs fuzzy, case sensitivity) unspecified.

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 verb and resource ("Search Cronometer: foods by name, or a diary day by date") and makes the dual mode explicit. It does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling search_foods, which an agent could easily confuse with the food-search half of this tool.

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?

It gives a concrete dispatch rule: a date (YYYY-MM-DD, "today", "yesterday") returns that day's diary, anything else searches the food database. It also routes the agent to `fetch` to read a result in full. It stops short of naming an alternative such as search_foods or stating when not to use this tool.

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