get_custom_foods

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses user-created scope, default list-all behavior, pagination parameters, and the inclusion of foodId/servingId in the response. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but the getter nature and output schema reduce the need.

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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by a precise usage rule and a compact Args block. Every sentence adds value without bloat or irrelevant detail.

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?

For a read-only list/search tool with an output schema, this description covers purpose, selection criteria, parameters, and downstream usage. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage, but the Args section fully describes search, start, and limit with defaults and intent. This fully compensates for the bare schema and adds meaning an agent would miss otherwise.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search or list user's custom foods') and explicitly contrasts with branded foods via search_foods. It is immediately clear what this tool does and how it differs from nearby siblings.

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 explicit guidance: search before creating duplicates, and use search_foods for branded catalog foods instead. It also explains the response contains foodId and servingId needed by log_custom_food, connecting this tool to a downstream workflow.

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