Search Food Data Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, providing a clear safety profile. The description adds context about being a first-step tool but does not elaborate on behavioral details such as return format, pagination behavior, or how results are ranked. This is acceptable given the annotations, but no extra behavioral insight is provided beyond what annotations imply.

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 exceptionally concise with two short sentences, both of which are directly relevant and front-loaded. However, the brevity sacrifices necessary parameter explanation, so it is not perfectly efficient; it could include a clause about query/limit without bloating significantly.

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?

Without an output schema, the description must clarify what the agent will receive (e.g., a list of tool names, recommended tool, or explanation) and how to use the results. It also fails to explain how 'query' influences the output or how 'limit' affects the number of suggestions. For a meta-tool that guides tool selection, this lack of detail makes the description incomplete for effective use.

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 description coverage (0%), and the description does not mention the 'query' or 'limit' parameters at all. The tool name suggests query is a natural-language need description and limit may cap results, but the agent must guess these semantics. A description for a routing tool should explicitly state that 'query' is the user's goal and 'limit' restricts the number of recommended tools.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Find the right food-data tool.' This uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('right food-data tool'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that directly search or retrieve food data. The phrase 'Use first if unsure what is available' reinforces its role as a discovery or routing 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?

The description gives clear usage guidance: 'Use first if unsure what is available.' This tells the agent when to call this tool, implying that if the agent already knows the appropriate sibling, it should use that tool directly. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls one point short of a perfect score.

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