search_foods

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals ranking by similarity with potential unrelated tail results, advises selecting the exact ingredient entry (e.g., 'Parmesan' over 'Parmesankäse'), explains the food tree path in 'full_name', and notes the rarely useful empty-query listing behavior.

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 yet rich: about six sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence contributes unique guidance (ranking, selection, examples, tree structure, empty query). No filler or redundancy.

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 the presence of an output schema and the absence of annotations, the description fully covers essential aspects for a search tool: purpose, ranking behavior, selection tips, tree structure, and parameter use. It leaves no significant gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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 100% and parameter descriptions already explain the queries and limit. The description adds practical semantic value with the example '100 g geriebener Parmesan' -> query 'Parmesan', clarifying how to think about query terms, which goes beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('foods (ingredients)'), and adds batch capability ('all of a recipe's ingredients at once'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_recipes and search_units, which target different entity types.

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 clear usage guidance: search for the ingredient rather than the whole written line, and prefer exact ingredient names. It also warns that omitting queries lists foods, which is rarely useful. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, though the context is strong.

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