List the user's own foods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results come back in the same shape as search_food hits and food_id differs semantically per hit type, which is what determines subsequent calls.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the scope ('foods the user created') before the ID-mapping detail. It reads as a long run-on packing several clauses, but every clause carries meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary; the description instead supplies the one thing the schema can't — the cross-tool ID semantics. Purpose, scope, provenance and follow-on routing are all present, leaving nothing an agent needs 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 100% and only two parameters exist (limit, phrase), each already documented in-schema. The description contributes nothing about filtering or paging, so this sits at the baseline where structured data does all the work.

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 (List) and a precisely scoped resource: foods the user created, split into their own recipes and products. This clearly separates it from siblings like search_food (public catalog) and get_favorite_foods, so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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?

The description establishes the usage context (the user's own created items, with create_recipe/create_food named as provenance) and routes downstream calls by mapping food_id to update_recipe/delete_recipe vs update_food/delete_food. It does not, however, state an explicit 'use search_food instead when...' exclusion, so the boundary with the search siblings is inferred rather than declared.

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