search_foods

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the catalog scope, the returned fields (food_id, source, name, brand, servings with macros), the meaning of the source field, and how to pair it with food_id for routing. It does not explicitly state 'read-only,' but 'search' implies a non-mutating operation and the return-value detail is strong.

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 the core purpose, then adds scope, return values, routing, and alternative tool guidance without fluff. The Args section is concise and earns its place given the 0% schema coverage. Every sentence provides useful information.

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 tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the necessary context: what is searched, what is returned, how to route results, pagination, and when to prefer a sibling tool. Nothing essential for an agent to call it correctly is missing.

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 parameter documentation in the description is essential. It adds real meaning beyond the raw schema by explaining query as a food name/brand with examples, and start/limit in terms of pagination and defaults. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 action ('Search Garmin's general food catalog') and clearly identifies the resource and scope. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from get_custom_foods ('not just the user's Garmin custom foods'), so an agent can readily tell it apart from 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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this to find branded packaged foods by name before logging them,' and the alternative is named directly: 'For the user's own custom foods only, use get_custom_foods instead.' It also explains how results should be routed to log_custom_food, which is actionable and precise.

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