List Foods Empty

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait (only unused foods are returned), but says nothing about read-only safety, scoping, ordering, or whether the result is paginated. For a simple read this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the discriminating condition stated up front. Nothing wasted, and the key behavior is visible in the first few words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the filter semantics are stated. However, with no annotations and no guidance on scope, ordering, or the undocumented language parameter, the definition is only minimally sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

One parameter (accept-language) exists with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all, nor explain its effect on returned food names. Since only one low-importance parameter exists the penalty is limited, but the description adds no compensating meaning.

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 gives a specific verb ("Returns") and resource ("a list of foods") plus a precise filter predicate ("not used by any recipe"), which is exactly what the "_empty" suffix implies. It is clearly distinguishable in behavior from the sibling list_foods, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to find orphaned/unused foods, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over list_foods, no scope information (household vs. group vs. global), and no exclusions.

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