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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so 'changes nothing' largely restates them. The one genuinely additive fact is that it works without an account, which annotations don't express — useful auth context, but the description stops there.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the resource and the parameter, with no filler. The trailing 'changes nothing' clause is mildly redundant with the read-only annotation, a minor inefficiency.

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?

With an output schema covering return values, full annotation coverage, and a single required well-documented parameter, the description is almost sufficient. The remaining gap is the relationship to import_shared_week, which matters for correct tool selection.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself explains that shareCode is an intentional public share code, never a private ID. The description only repeats the parameter name in parentheses, adding no syntax, format, or source guidance beyond the 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 (shows) and resource (dinners and cooking details behind a shared week link), and pins the input as shareCode. It's clear on its own, but it never mentions the sibling import_shared_week, so the boundary between previewing and importing a shared week must be inferred.

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?

'Available without an account and changes nothing' implies a read-only preview context, and the absence of any exclusion is fine. However, the agent is not told when to choose this over import_shared_week or how the two interact, leaving the main usage decision implicit.

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