Search USDA FoodData Central

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavior beyond the schema: it names return fields, reveals that Foundation records may omit Energy while SR Legacy has complete macros, and discloses that results are cached on disk. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but the disclosure of data caveats and caching is solid.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then specific return fields and a data-quality caveat. No filler or repeated schema details. Every sentence provides distinct value.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description explains the return fields and gives practical advice for selecting between data types. It does not cover pagination or default page_size, but the schema documents page_size constraints and data_types defaults. Overall it gives enough context to use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 67%, with query and data_types documented. The description does not add extra meaning for any parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions hasCoreMacros, which is a return field, not a parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers most parameters.

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 verb+resource: 'Find foods by name in USDA FoodData Central.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_food (retrieval by id) and food_nutrition (nutrition facts) by focusing on searching by name and returning identifiers.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings is provided. The description offers advice on preferring hasCoreMacros entries, but that relates to result interpretation, not tool selection. It does not mention alternatives such as get_food or food_nutrition.

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