get_favorite_foods

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

The description notes the auth requirement, which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, the annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool is clearly safe and non-destructive. The description does not elaborate on return format, pagination, or what counts as 'favorite foods', but for a zero-parameter tool with strong annotations, this is 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 description is extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the core action in the first sentence and adding critical prerequisite info in the second. Every sentence adds value without any wasted 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?

Given this is a simple, zero-parameter, read-only tool with complete annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the function, the auth requirement, and there is no output schema to document. The tool is low-complexity and the description covers the essential context.

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 input schema has no parameters and is 100% covered. The description adds no parameter details (none needed), and a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema provides all needed information and the description doesn't add any redundant parameter info.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'the user's favorite foods', clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_favorite_recipes' and 'get_most_eaten_foods' by specifically focusing on foods, though it doesn't explicitly contrast against these siblings.

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 explicitly states that profile authentication is required via 'check_auth_status', giving clear context for proper use and a prerequisite action. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_most_eaten_foods' or 'get_recently_eaten_foods', missing explicit exclusions.

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