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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it clarifies that Drafts and Saved Weeks do not affect the result and that a linked Chop It account is required. These are behavioral traits not in the annotations, though it stops short of describing return format or edge cases.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and remains efficient. 'Read-only' slightly duplicates the annotations, but overall every sentence adds useful information and there is no fluff.

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 tool's simplicity, empty schema, rich annotations, and available output schema, the description provides everything needed to call it correctly: what it returns, its scope, auth requirement, and how it differs from drafts/saved weeks.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. Per scoring rules, zero parameters sets a baseline of 4.

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 (Returns) and resource (dinners currently set as This Week), and explicitly distinguishes it from Drafts and Saved Weeks. An agent can immediately tell this retrieves the active week's dinners, not a draft or saved week.

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?

It gives clear use-case examples ('what's for dinner tonight?' or 'what's on this week?') and says 'without planning anything new,' which implicitly excludes planning tools. However, it does not name specific alternative tools (e.g., get_menu_draft, list_saved_weeks) to route to, leaving that to inference.

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