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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's own 'Read-only' merely repeats that. It does add real value with the exclusion note that supplement lists are omitted from the payload, though it gives no detail on missing-date behavior or error 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the returned content, no filler, and the exclusion caveat placed after the main payload description. Every clause carries information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does the work of enumerating return fields, which makes the tool callable and interpretable. Completeness is slightly reduced by the absence of guidance on how this relates to sibling meal/plan tools.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining the single date parameter means one day's meal program and by spelling out the YYYY-MM-DD format. That is enough for a one-parameter tool, though the format detail largely duplicates the schema pattern.

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 ('Returns') plus the exact resource ('meal program for one date') and enumerates the returned content (program start/length, meals with keys, times, items, repeat rule). This scope is clearly distinct from sibling tools like zarok_get_plan, zarok_get_courses and zarok_get_week_summary.

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 by the single-date scope, but the description never says when to prefer this over zarok_get_plan or zarok_get_week_summary, nor does it name an alternative for multi-day or program-wide views. The 'Supplement lists are not included' note hints at scope boundaries but doesn't route the agent anywhere.

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