search_foods

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and says nothing about permissions, pagination, result ordering, or how the snapshot/include_off options change behavior. The only implicit signal is that this is a read operation because it is a search.

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 no filler or redundancy. The terseness is a symptom of under-specification rather than wasteful structure, so the sentence itself is well-formed.

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-value documentation is not required. However, for a four-parameter search tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves too much undocumented, especially the non-obvious include_off and snapshot parameters.

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 0% for four parameters. The description's 'by name' maps only to q; the cryptic include_off flag, the snapshot date, and the limit cap are left entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description, forcing the agent to guess what include_off toggles.

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 and resource ('Search foods and products') plus the search dimension ('by name'), so an agent knows exactly what the call does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_food or get_product_by_barcode, which are lookups for individual items rather than queries.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'by name' weakly implies the tool is for name-based lookup rather than barcode lookup, but the agent is left to infer that get_product_by_barcode or get_food are the alternatives for other access patterns.

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