search_foods

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

Annotations only say read-only and open-world, while the description discloses substantial extra behavior: the exact endpoint, default start/limit values, response shape, catalogue source metadata, subscription gating, paired-device requirement, and the 403 error when prerequisites are absent. This is exactly the kind of context that helps an agent avoid a failed call.

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 compact and front-loads the subscription requirement, endpoint, and response shape. The later bolded repetition of 'Needs Garmin Connect+' is somewhat redundant, but the overall structure remains efficient.

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 key return shape ({results, moreDataAvailable}) and catalogue metadata. It also covers authentication and error behavior, though it leaves some pagination and limit-detail gaps.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It names the endpoint parameters and gives defaults for start/limit (0/20), but it does not explain the meaning of query beyond 'searchExpression', nor does it define limit bounds or start offset semantics.

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 specific resource (food search) and scope (catalogue foods with source FATSECRET, returned via a Garmin nutrition endpoint). It implicitly distinguishes catalogue foods from custom foods, but does not explicitly name a sibling alternative such as get_custom_foods, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite (Garmin Connect+ subscription) and points to has_connect_plus for checking it, plus a warning that a 403 occurs without the subscription. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like get_custom_foods or quick_add_food.

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