Search foods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so description's brief mention of 'search' is consistent but adds no extra behavioral context like rate limits or pagination. No contradiction with 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?

Single sentence with no redundancy. All information is front-loaded and essential. Perfectly concise for the purpose.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should clarify return format or field details. It does not. Additionally, two parameters (limit, response_format) are undocumented in the description, leaving functional gaps for the 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, description should compensate but only partially explains the provider parameter (listing options with context) and implies query. It omits limit and response_format parameters entirely.

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?

Description clearly states it searches food providers by query and lists provider options with their intended uses (e.g., taco for Brazilian staples). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_food or log_intake.

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?

Description explicitly guides which provider to use for different food types (e.g., open_food_facts for packaged products). It implies the tool is for general food search but does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_food for a specific food item.

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