search_food

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key output (kidney patient ratings), but does not describe search behavior such as matching rules, result limits, or how optional parameters affect results. It is not misleading, but significant behavioral details remain unspecified.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or 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?

The description adequately explains the core purpose and output, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, it lacks explanation of the optional parameters and usage context, which is especially important given the absence of schema descriptions. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 descriptions are 0% covered, and the description only clarifies the 'keyword' parameter through '按名称关键词检索'. The 'top_k' and 'category' parameters are left unexplained, giving the agent no insight into their meaning or effect.

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?

Description clearly states it searches foods by name keyword in the Chinese Food Composition Table and returns kidney patient ratings (potassium/phosphorus/sodium/purine). The verb '检索' (search) plus specific resource and output makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from other food-related tools.

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 get_food_profile or get_alternatives. The description only states what it does, not the context or conditions under which it should be chosen over sibling tools.

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