Search foods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond provider selection. 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?

Two sentences that are concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant information. Every word adds value.

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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers provider selection but omits details on limit (pagination), response_format, and privacy_mode effects. Though defaults exist, added context would improve completeness for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 20% (only privacy_mode has a description). The description adds meaning for the provider parameter and suggests query usage, but does not address limit, response_format, or privacy_mode beyond what schema provides. Thus, some compensation but not full.

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 searches food providers by query, with specific guidance on which provider to use for different food types. This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like nourish_lookup_barcode and nourish_get_food.

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 provides explicit context for when to use each provider (e.g., taco for Brazilian staples, open_food_facts for packaged products). It implies when not to use this tool (e.g., for barcode lookup, use the barcode tool), but does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives.

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