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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the recommendation sources, the protein-gap/time-of-day selection logic, the cap of 3 options, and that protein and calories are returned. It does not discuss ranking criteria or what happens when no gap exists, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what it returns and from what, when to reach for it, and how to act on the result. The chaining instruction to malai_log_food is placed last where an agent will look for next steps, and no sentence is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description only needs to signal the shape (up to 3 options with protein and calories), which it does. Combined with the handoff instruction and trigger phrases, an agent has everything needed to select and call this parameterless tool correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. It correctly implies all context (user, time of day, protein gap) is derived server-side rather than passed in, which is the useful signal here.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ("Get personalised ideas for the user's next meal or snack") and scopes the source of those ideas (saved recipes plus GLP-1-friendly recipes) and the optimization target (close today's protein gap at this time of day). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling reads like malai_get_saved_recipes (raw list) and malai_search_foods (direct lookup).

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?

Provides concrete trigger utterances ("what should I eat", "what's for dinner", "I'm hungry", "something light with protein") and an explicit follow-up route to malai_log_food via the logWith field. It lacks an explicit exclusion such as "do not use when the user already named a specific food – use malai_search_foods instead", which keeps it short of a 5.

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