get_custom_foods

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

Annotations only carry readOnlyHint/openWorldHint; the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the Connect+ gate, a hard `limit` cap of 20 that triggers HTTP 400 above it, and the 405 on get-by-id. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs and cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the subscription gate and packed with high-value gotchas in a small space. The one waste is restating the Connect+ requirement at the very end ('Needs Connect+'), which duplicates the opening sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and the key failure modes (400 on large limit, 405 on by-id). Missing is any explanation of `start` pagination semantics, which an agent listing many custom foods would need.

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%, so the description must carry the parameters. It documents `limit` (capped at 20) and implies `search` (search by name), but leaves `start` and its pagination relationship to `moreDataAvailable` unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 names the exact endpoint and return payload (`GET /nutrition-service/customFood` returning `{customFoods, moreDataAvailable}`), so the read-list purpose is unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from the absent get-by-id variant by noting `/customFood/{id}` is a 405. It is slightly endpoint-flavored rather than plain-language, but an agent can still identify it immediately.

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 states a hard prerequisite (Connect+ subscription, verifiable via has_connect_plus) and a concrete workflow rule: since there is no get-by-id, read a single food back by searching on name. No explicit exclusions against sibling listing tools like search_foods, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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