get_recently_eaten_foods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying an authentication requirement beyond what annotations provide. Since it does not contradict annotations, it scores well on transparency for a read-only operation.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and ends with a necessary usage note. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 the tool has one optional parameter, no nested objects, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly. The auth prerequisite covers a critical gap. It could potentially mention what the output looks like (e.g., a list of food items) since there's no output schema, but the name implies the return type clearly.

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 only one optional enum parameter with 100% coverage via its description. The description adds a small amount of context by clarifying the filter is by meal type, but does not add significant meaning beyond the enum values already documented.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('recently eaten foods'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_most_eaten_foods' which tracks different foods, and 'get_food_entries' which might be a broader query. The optional filtering by meal adds precision.

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 a prerequisite: 'Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first)', which is crucial for correct usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_food_entries' or search tools, missing a slight opportunity for differentiation.

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