mfp_get_frequent_foods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minor context by mentioning the legacy load_most_used endpoint and stating that the return value is a string list. It does not disclose behaviors like sorting, pagination, or potential latency of the legacy endpoint, but the annotation coverage keeps this 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 opening sentence is a clear, front-loaded summary, followed by a scannable Args/Returns structure. The legacy-endpoint sentence adds context but is not essential. Overall, the description is compact and readable without significant bloat.

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?

The tool is simple, read-only, and has an output schema, so the description is nearly sufficient for invocation. It covers both parameters and the return type. The main gaps are the lack of sibling-tool routing and the untold default behavior for response_format and limit, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing between similar list tools.

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 reported as 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It documents both limit and response_format, adds a domain-specific default of 10 for limit not present in the schema, and lists valid response_format values. This meaningfully compensates for the schema gap, though it omits the markdown default for response_format.

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 operation: 'Get most-used foods from MyFitnessPal,' with a specific verb and resource. It also names the legacy endpoint backing it. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as mfp_get_recent_foods and mfp_get_my_foods, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like mfp_get_recent_foods or mfp_get_my_foods. The phrase 'most-used foods' implies a use case, but the description never states when to prefer this tool, when not to, or what distinguishes 'frequent' from 'recent' or 'my foods.'

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