search_food

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: explains spelling-variant matching (sambar/sambhar), the all-words-must-match token rule, that zero hits return a `note` plus up to 5 close-name suggestions, and that `total` counts pre-limit matches. It also names the result fields and, critically, that each food carries `units` with gram weights accepted by get_nutrition and compute_meal.

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 identity and the 'call this first' instruction, then adds detail in priority order. The prose is dense and the second sentence is long and comma-chained, but nearly every clause carries operational information an agent needs.

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?

Covers matching semantics, the empty-result contract, result field meanings, cross-tool unit compatibility, and pagination behavior — all the decision-relevant context for a search tool. An output schema exists, yet the description's explanation of `units`/grams adds genuinely useful cross-tool linkage rather than duplicating it.

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 80% and the individual params are already documented, but the description adds real semantics the schema lacks: the relationship between `total` and `limit` and the corrective actions (raise limit, narrow by region/diet/kind). It does not restate enum meanings, which is appropriate since the schema covers them.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+payload: 'Find foods by name and get their ids.' It immediately positions itself relative to siblings by noting the other food tools take ids from it, so an agent knows this is the entry point rather than a nutrition or meal tool.

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?

Explicit sequencing guidance ('Call this first') plus concrete fallback instructions: when total exceeds shown results, raise limit or narrow by region/diet/kind, and when no result matches, report the dish missing rather than substituting a suggestion. The one gap is that the sibling `find_foods` is never mentioned, so an agent cannot tell how this differs from that similarly-named tool.

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