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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioural information: the payload bundles the AI quota alongside the profile fields, which an agent wouldn't expect from the name. It does not say what the quota unit means or what happens for a student with no diet context.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the resource and appends the quota detail. No filler, though the phrasing 'the student summary the app's AI uses' is slightly roundabout for what is fundamentally 'returns the diet-plan context'.

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, so the description must carry the return shape, and it does: four named profile fields plus a quota figure. The only real gap is that quota semantics (per what period, consumed by what action) are left vague, which matters for an agent deciding whether it can still generate a plan.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% – the schema already states student_id is an integer sourced from list_students. The description does not add any meaning on top of that, so the 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?

The description names a concrete resource: the student summary used for diet-plan generation, enumerating its fields (age, sex, goal, restrictions) plus remaining AI quota. That distinguishes it from near-neighbours like get_student_summary, get_student_training_context, and get_diet_plan by framing it as diet-specific. It never uses an explicit verb like 'retrieves' but the content is unambiguous.

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 is only implied: 'the app's AI uses to write diet plans' hints this is the context to fetch before creating a diet plan, but there is no explicit instruction, no when-not condition, and no pointer to a sibling to use instead. An agent must infer the call site.

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