mfp_list_own_foods

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: ordering (newest first), scope (the user's own custom foods), and return contents (id, description, brand, calories). No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded: a clear one-sentence purpose, a useful routing hint, then explicit args/returns. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a simple read-only list tool it covers why to use it, how it differs from a sibling, ordering, and return fields. Parameter details are in the schema and safety is covered by annotations, so nothing essential is missing.

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 description only names the parameters (search, limit, response_format) without adding semantic detail, but the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. Therefore the description adds no extra value beyond the schema, matching the baseline for well-documented 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List the user's own custom foods, newest first.' It differentiates from mfp_search_food by explaining that private custom foods do not reliably surface there, so agents can tell exactly when this tool is the right lookup.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool: when private custom foods don't surface in mfp_search_food and to find the id of something previously created. It names the sibling alternative and the condition that selects it.

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