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

The annotations already disclose that the tool is a non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write, but they do not explain the public-exposure consequence. The description adds real behavioral context: the link is anonymous and publicly viewable, it exposes nutrients per portion and a combined shopping list, visitors can copy everything in one tap, and the collection can be extended later while the URL stays stable. It does not cover permissions, failure modes for invalid dish ids, or rate limits, which keeps it below a 5.

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 action and scope, followed by visitor-facing behavior and the card output. Every sentence carries information and none repeat the schema, though the example title in German is somewhat verbose for the value it adds.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing what the landing page shows and what `cardUrl` returns, so an agent knows what it gets back. For a six-parameter mutation tool, the main remaining gap is the absence of any statement about limits or errors, such as unknown savedMealIds or a title that exceeds the maximum length.

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 all six parameters (tz, title, campaign, ttlHours, mealNames, savedMealIds) are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, such as whether mealNames and savedMealIds are alternatives, or what happens when an id is unknown. Its mention of `cardUrl` (a 1080×1080 PNG) is return-value information, not parameter semantics.

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 uses a concrete verb and resource: 'Creates an anonymous link to a collection of several saved dishes under one title', which lets an agent distinguish this tool from simpler single-item shares. However, it never names a sibling tool (for example joiva_share_meal or joiva_share_day) to contrast with, so the differentiation is conveyed only by the phrase 'collection of several saved dishes'.

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?

Usage is implied through examples ('a weekly plan ... or a group's recipes'), which sketch the intended scenario but give no explicit when-to-use or when-not conditions. The description never states what should be used for a single dish or a single day; an agent must infer that from sibling names alone.

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