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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-shape context (each meal carries a mealType, defaulting to dinner), which matters because no output schema exists. It still says nothing about ordering, empty plans, or missing dates.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first is front-loaded usage guidance, the second defines the return content. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, strong annotations and no output schema, the definition supplies what an agent needs: when to call it and what comes back. Only the relationship to preview_meal_plan is left unaddressed.

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 both parameters (days, startDate) are already fully documented including defaults, format and the 1-28 range. The description only restates the date-range concept and the 'day or week' framing, adding no semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: returns the meals in the user's Recipe One meal plan for a date range. An agent can distinguish this read operation from write siblings like add_to_meal_plan or replace_meal_plan_entry. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling preview_meal_plan, which is a plausible source of confusion.

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?

"Use this when the user asks what is planned for a day or week" gives a clear triggering context tied to a concrete user utterance. The gap is the absence of any exclusion or alternative — notably preview_meal_plan, which sounds like an overlapping read tool.

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