Search FatSecret Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a usage recommendation but no additional behavioral details such as return format or side effects. It does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that state the purpose and usage guidance. There is no redundant phrasing or filler; every word earns its place.

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 discovery tool with strong annotations and optional parameters, the description provides enough context for an agent to use it correctly. It lacks details about the response format, but given no output schema and the tool's straightforward role, it is reasonably complete for its complexity.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention 'query' or 'limit'. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description provides no explicit semantics, leaving the agent to infer what query string to pass and how limit controls results. With zero coverage, the description must compensate but does not.

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 verb and resource: 'Find the right FatSecret tool/method'. This distinguishes it from the long list of sibling tools, which are all specific operations rather than a discovery/search tool. It is immediately obvious what the tool does.

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?

'Use first if unsure what is available' gives explicit guidance on when to invoke this tool, positioning it as the primary entry point for capability discovery. It does not discuss when not to use it or name specific alternatives, but the instruction is clear and actionable.

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