food_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only indicates a search operation, implying reads, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or result format. Basic transparency is lacking.

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 sentence, which is brief, but it is under-specified. It lacks structure and prioritizes brevity over informativeness. Essential details are omitted, making it insufficiently concise in terms of being complete yet concise.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide comprehensive context. It does not explain what is returned (e.g., list of products, details), how pagination works, or any usage context. The description is severely incomplete.

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%, meaning the description adds no detail about parameters beyond the schema names. The description does not explain what 'query', 'page', or 'page_size' mean, nor their expected formats or constraints. This is a critical gap for a 3-parameter tool.

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 the tool searches for food products on Open Food Facts, distinguishing it from sibling tools like food_by_category (category-specific) and food_get_product (single product). The verb 'search' and resource 'food products on Open Food Facts' are specific, though it could be more precise about the scope.

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 food_by_category or food_get_product. The description does not include any context about suitable use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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