mfp_get_recent_foods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by noting the legacy endpoint still works when newer account pages redirect away from authenticated sessions, which is useful operational information not present in the annotations or schema.

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 compact and well-structured: one purpose sentence, one technical context sentence, a terse Args list, and a Returns line. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only list tool this is mostly adequate, covering parameters, return type, and a reliability caveat. It is incomplete as a selection aid because it never addresses when to use this tool instead of the nearby recent/frequent/my-food siblings, and the limit default discrepancy leaves some ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 Args section repeats and clarifies limit and response_format, including the effective default of 10 and max of 100, which adds some meaning beyond the schema's null default. However, the stated default 10 conflicts with the schema's declared default of null, and the response_format values are already enumerated in the schema, so the added parameter insight is only partially reliable.

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?

Begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Get recently used foods from MyFitnessPal.' The phrase 'recently used' distinguishes it from sibling tools like mfp_get_frequent_foods and mfp_get_my_foods, so an agent can tell this tool apart without needing to inspect schemas.

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 explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as mfp_get_frequent_foods, mfp_get_my_foods, or mfp_search_food. The legacy-endpoint remark is an implementation detail rather than a selection rule, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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