mfp_search_food

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what the search returns (name, brand, serving size, calories, MFP ID) and how the limit defaults to 10, which goes beyond the annotation metadata.

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-organized with an opening purpose sentence followed by compact Args and Returns sections. It is not bloated, though some of the parameter details duplicate what the input schema already states. Overall it is efficient and scannable.

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 read-only search tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is returned, names the linked detail tool, and documents all parameters. It could be slightly stronger with explicit notes on empty results or limit cap, but nothing critical 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 context signal reports 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the parameter-documentation burden. It does so by listing query, limit, and response_format with types, defaults, and a concrete example ('chicken breast'). It also adds semantic value by explaining the returned MFP ID's downstream use.

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 ('Search') and names the exact resource ('MyFitnessPal food database'). It also lists the output fields and explicitly distinguishes itself from the detail-retrieval tool mfp_get_food_details by stating the returned MFP ID is for that tool.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to search for food items and then use mfp_get_food_details for details. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like mfp_list_own_foods, but the intended flow is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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