APIbase

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description adds valuable behavioral context: the scope of the database ('350K+ foods') and the specific data types returned (nutrition facts, ingredients, branded products), helping the agent understand query capabilities.

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 single sentence is perfectly front-loaded with the core action and resource, using an em-dash to append descriptive metadata without waste. Every clause earns its place.

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 100% schema coverage, clear annotations, and straightforward search purpose, the description is complete. It adequately describes the tool's function without needing to duplicate pagination details already clear in the schema parameters.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is met. The description adds semantic meaning by mapping the abstract data_type enum values ('Foundation', 'Branded') to user-understandable categories ('reference foods', 'branded products'), clarifying the filter's purpose.

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 provides a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the exact resource ('350K+ foods in the USDA FoodData Central database'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the USDA data source versus FatSecret or generic food product searches available in the toolset.

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 implies usage by specifying the USDA domain and content types (nutrition facts, ingredients), helping users select this for USDA-specific queries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like health.nutrition.food_details or nutrition.fatsecret.search.

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