query_food

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: newest-first ordering, a hard cap of 200 meals, the field inventory returned per entry, and the fact that the id is the handle for update_meal/delete_meal. It does not say what happens when the 200-meal cap is hit (truncation vs error), which keeps it short of a 5.

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-loaded with resource and scope, then routing to siblings, then parameter semantics at the end. The field list is dense but every item is informative and there is no filler sentence.

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 no explanation, and both parameters plus the sibling routing are covered. The only residual gap is pagination/truncation behavior at the 200-meal cap, which an agent calling a bounded list may still need to know.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: days is documented as a look-back window with default 7, and meal_type is documented as an optional filter with the allowed values breakfast / lunch / dinner / snack / drink — enum values the schema lacks entirely. Both parameters are fully usable from the prose alone.

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 resource (food diary entries), a scope (last N days, newest first, max 200 meals), and enumerates the returned fields including the id used by update_meal/delete_meal. It also explicitly separates itself from query_nutrition and nutrition_report, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit positive trigger ('Use it to see WHAT was eaten') and names two alternatives with the condition that selects each: query_nutrition for daily totals vs norms, nutrition_report for deficiencies and food↔wellbeing patterns. Nothing is left to inference.

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