search_food

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It communicates that this is a read-style search operation and specifies that results include calories and macros. However, it does not disclose pagination semantics, result structure, access requirements, or rate limits, which would be useful for a tool with no output schema and no annotation coverage.

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?

Two short declarative sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the return value is stated immediately in the second sentence, making the tool easy to scan and invoke.

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 low-complexity search tool this is adequate: the required query parameter is obvious and the return content is named. However, with no output schema and no annotation coverage, the absence of any return-format details and no guidance about get_food_details as an alternative leaves meaningful gaps.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, valid ranges, and examples, so the description is not required to explain them. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond implying the query is a text search against the food database.

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'), a clear resource ('the MyFitnessPal food database'), and the expected return payload ('food items with calories and macros'). This is distinct from sibling tools like get_diary or add_food, and it is not a tautology of the tool name.

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 clearly establishes the tool as the food-search entry point and implies it should be used when a user wants to find foods with nutritional data by query text. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, such as using get_food_details for a known food ID, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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