search_foods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns 'food names, descriptions, and basic nutrition info,' which is minimally informative. It does not disclose pagination behavior, result limits, or how region/language affect results, so it adds only marginal value beyond the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'Search,' and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core action and return content. However, given the tool's 10 parameters and many siblings, it could be slightly expanded to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It omits pagination details (max_results, page_number), filtering options (region, language, food_type), and does not explain what 'basic nutrition info' entails. An agent cannot reliably anticipate all input constraints or result structure from this description alone.

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 only 10% (only search_expression has a description). The description does not explain any parameters beyond the search query. With 9 undocumented parameters (region, language, food_type, etc.), the description fails to compensate for the sparse schema. The agent receives no guidance on how to use these optional parameters effectively.

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 clearly states it searches the FatSecret food database and returns names, descriptions, and basic nutrition info. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_food (single item details) and search_recipes (different resource). However, it could be more precise about what 'basic nutrition info' includes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like autocomplete_foods, find_food_by_barcode, or search_recipes. The description offers no decision criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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