List recently logged foods

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the results are sorted 'most used first' and mirror the shape of search_food hits. It omits empty-result or pagination behavior, but coverage is strong relative to a simple read tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the core purpose, ordering, and result shape are front-loaded. The usage hint follows efficiently without padding.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and full schema coverage handles parameters. Annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers scope, ordering, and a use case, leaving only sibling routing unaddressed.

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%, so the meal enum and limit are fully documented in the schema (including the non-trivial instruction to map user meal words against get_day's meal_name). The description adds nothing param-specific, 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 ('List'), a precise resource ('foods the user recently logged in a meal'), plus ordering ('most used first') and result shape ('same shape as search_food hits'). An agent can distinguish this from get_favorite_foods or get_top_foods by the 'recently logged in a meal' scope, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase "Handy for 'my usual breakfast'" gives a concrete usage scenario, implying when to reach for this tool. However, it names no alternatives (get_favorite_foods, get_top_foods, get_my_foods) and states no when-not conditions, leaving routing to inference.

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