get_custom_foods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It clearly indicates this is a read-only lookup and mentions returned fields, but it does not explicitly state that no data is modified or describe pagination edge 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?

The description is succinct and well-structured, leading with the main purpose, followed by usage guidance and parameter details. It avoids unnecessary fluff.

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 simple list/search tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies user-specific custom foods, explains the purpose of returned IDs, and directs users to the correct sibling tool for branded foods. No essential information is 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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions, but the Args section explains all three parameters: search filters by name, start is the pagination index, and limit is the maximum result count. Defaults are also included.

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 the tool's purpose: search or list the user's custom foods. It also distinguishes this tool from search_foods, which handles branded catalog foods.

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?

It explicitly instructs to use the search parameter before creating duplicates and notes that the response includes foodId and servingId for log_custom_food. It also names search_foods as the alternative for branded foods, so usage guidance is concrete.

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