mfp_search_food

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool searches the external MyFitnessPal database and returns a list with specific fields, which is useful. It does not disclose potential rate limits, network dependency, or error behavior, but for a read-only search this is a moderate gap rather than a serious one.

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 well-structured and efficient: a one-sentence purpose statement, a concise return summary, and a clean Args/Returns breakdown. There is no filler, and the bulleted parameter list earns its place given the low schema coverage.

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?

The description covers the invocation pattern, all parameters, and the return value. Combined with readOnly/idempotent annotations and a likely output schema, it is nearly complete for a search tool. The only missing piece is explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling search/list tools.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is reported as 0%, the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter with types, examples, and defaults: query with example, limit with default of 10, and response_format with 'markdown' or 'json'. This is more than enough for an agent to construct a correct invocation.

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 and resource: 'Search the MyFitnessPal food database for food items.' It also clarifies the output type (list of matching foods) and mentions MFP ID, which helps distinguish it from detail-lookup tools like mfp_get_food_details. However, it does not explicitly contrast with user-specific list tools like mfp_get_my_foods or mfp_get_recent_foods, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 makes the primary usage clear: search the food database when you need to find foods by query. It also hints at a follow-up workflow ('which can be used with mfp_get_food_details'), giving useful context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a search tool.

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