Search Foods

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

Annotations declare readOnly and openWorld; the description adds that it has preview mode and dry-run estimation to conserve context, which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention rate limits, data freshness, or how preview/dry-run behave, but with annotations present this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence front-loads the tool purpose and lists features without redundancy. It earns its place by adding the 'conserve context' rationale.

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 an 8-parameter tool with nested objects and low schema coverage, one sentence is insufficient. Output schema exists, but optional parameters like sampleSize and includeRaw remain unexplained, and the relationship between previewOnly and estimateOnly is ambiguous.

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 coverage is only 38% and the description does not explain the optional query, includeRaw, sampleSize, previewOnly, or estimateOnly semantics beyond naming the feature groups. It orients the agent that query is full-text and maps filters/pagination to concepts, but does not compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 clearly states it performs full-text search of USDA FoodData Central and lists key features. This distinguishes it from sibling list-foods and get-food tools by the 'full-text search' verb+resource pair, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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 implies a search use case but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions among sibling tools. It does not state that list-foods should be used for unfiltered listing or that get-food is for single-item retrieval.

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