List favourite foods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioural cue — that hits are shaped like search_food results — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens when the user has no favourites.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, and the resource and output-shape note are both front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers what is listed and the result shape; only the ordering/pagination behaviour and the distinction from sibling list tools are left implicit.

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 100% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema (default 10, max 50). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('List the user's favourite products and recipes') and clarifies scope as the user's favourites, which distinguishes it from generic search tools. It does not explicitly differentiate from near-neighbours like get_top_foods or get_my_foods, so it falls just short of 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. In a sibling set containing get_top_foods, get_my_foods, get_recent_foods, and search_food, an agent gets no help deciding which listing tool to call.

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