searchFood

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

Beyond the readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent annotations, the description discloses non-obvious behavioral expectations such as surfacing candidates for user choice, not silently selecting, and why Foundation/SR Legacy are preferred. This is meaningful extra context that annotations alone would not convey.

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?

Three compact sentences, with the core action front-loaded and every sentence earning its place. No filler or duplicate structured information beyond what is helpful context.

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 the output schema exists and readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent annotations are already available, the description covers the key behavioral rule and data-source rationale. It does not mention alternative sibling routing, but the tool is simple and the necessary usage context is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents limit and dataType, including defaults and data-type preferences, while the description adds only marginally to query semantics. The description restates dataType guidance rather than adding new parameter meaning, so it is adequate but not highly informative beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action on a clear resource: "Search USDA FoodData Central for a food", and distinguishes itself by explaining the role of each data source, which separates it from sibling tools like lookupBarcode or getFoodMacros. The scope is immediately recognizable to an agent, with additional selection guidance that further clarifies what kind of results this tool surfaces.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance for Foundation/SR Legacy versus Branded results and adds a clear interaction duty: show candidates to the user and do not pick silently. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the data-source conditions are clear enough to route typical food-search use.

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