fooddata_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds that the tool is 'paged' and filterable 'by data type,' which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. It does not disclose return format or pagination details, but with the annotation as a baseline, this is adequate.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('Browse a paged list of foods'), and every word adds value. It is efficient, clear, and contains no redundancy.

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 clear annotations, complete schema descriptions for all parameters, and a simple list-browsing purpose, the description is sufficiently complete. It could explicitly mention default pagination or sorting options, but the schema already covers these, and the tool's simplicity keeps the description adequate without an output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description only adds a general mention of filtering 'by data type,' which maps to the dataType parameter but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('foods from the USDA database'), and clearly frames the tool as a paged listing tool. The phrase 'without a specific search term' distinguishes it from the sibling fooddata_search, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 says it is 'useful for exploring available foods by data type without a specific search term,' which clearly indicates the best use case (browsing/exploring) and implies that fooddata_search is the alternative when a search term exists. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use it.

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