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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important behavioral context: it uses saved EINI settings, may require an EINI subscription, needs the user's EINI login, and changes the current plan without deleting earlier plans. These details go well beyond the annotation hints about read-only, destructive, and idempotent status.

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 follows with relevant operational caveats. It is somewhat long, but most sentences carry useful information about scope, side effects, subscription needs, and authentication.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and complex side effects, the description covers the key behavioral requirements: account login, possible subscription, saved defaults, and the plan becoming current. It does not describe the response format or how to retrieve the generated shopping list, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four optional parameters and their defaults. The description adds a light conceptual mapping by saying the user may change people, diets, or language, but it does not add much syntax or semantic detail 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: making a NEW weekly meal plan in the user's EINI account, with scope of 7 days, lunch and dinner, Swiss supermarket deals, and a shopping list. It clearly distinguishes creation from sibling tools like eini_my_meal_plan and eini_my_shopping_list.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: call only when the user asks for a new plan, and it explains the consequence that the new plan becomes the current plan while earlier plans remain. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for viewing or comparing plans, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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