Search the food catalog

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety, and the description goes further by disclosing the per-hit fields, that times_used is null when the server does not say, and that a locale-scoped search also surfaces previously logged foods. It does not mention pagination or result-ordering behavior.

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?

Front-loads the core capability and the barcode routing, then enumerates return fields compactly. It is dense but nearly every clause carries information; the return-field enumeration is the only part that borders on redundant given the output schema.

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 three-parameter read-only search with a full schema and an output schema, the description covers scope, locale behavior, sibling routing, and return semantics. An agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'Polish names work best' and the semantics of locale (that the returned foods can be logged like any other, and that user-logged foods appear too) go beyond the enum's field description.

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 (Search) and resource (the Fitatu food catalog) and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by declaring that a barcode belongs in find_by_barcode. The PRODUCT/RECIPE type and food_id are named, so an agent knows exactly what class of entity is returned.

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?

Explicitly routes barcode lookups to find_by_barcode and explains the locale selection condition (omit for the user's own catalog, set for another country). It does not, however, contrast with search_recipes, get_my_foods, get_recent_foods, or get_favorite_foods, which are close neighbours for the same catalog.

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