mfp_get_my_foods

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond those annotations by disclosing that this tool relies on a legacy endpoint and remains reachable when the modern page redirects away from authenticated sessions. 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?

The description is well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a brief endpoint explanation, then clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. It is compact and front-loaded, with no filler, though it does partially repeat parameter details already present in the schema.

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?

For a read-only tool with annotations and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: endpoint provenance, authentication scope, parameter meaning, and return type. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning explicit error or authentication caveats, but these are implied by 'authenticated user.'

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 description explicitly documents limit with its effective default of 100 and maximum of 100, and lists response_format options as 'markdown' or 'json'. Even though the nested schema provides some field descriptions, the tool description adds practical constraints and clarifies expected usage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get foods created or saved by the authenticated user.' It also names the underlying legacy endpoint, making the tool's scope clear and distinguishing it from general food search or food-detail tools.

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 explains a useful practical context: it uses the legacy endpoint that remains accessible even when the modern My Foods page redirects. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to mfp_get_recent_foods, mfp_get_frequent_foods, or mfp_search_food.

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