search_foods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys only that this is a paginated search; it omits search matching semantics, result ordering, limits, and any authentication or read-only expectations.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, with a compact parameter list following. There is no fluff, though the Args section largely duplicates the input schema.

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 three-parameter search with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient, but it lacks context on search behavior such as partial vs exact matching, case sensitivity, or maximum per_page. It also provides no rationale for when this tool is preferred over others.

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 0%, and the Args section is the sole source of parameter meaning. It gives brief descriptions for query, page, and per_page, but these are generic and lack format constraints or value ranges.

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 and resource: 'Search the foods database.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling CRUD tools such as create_recipe and delete_shopping_list. However, it is terse and doesn't clarify what a food entry is or how results are scoped.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The description only states the action and lists parameters, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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