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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description reinforces this with 'Read-only: saves nothing' and adds genuinely new behavior: preferring quick recipes on busy days and the propose-then-save handoff. It also describes the return shape, which annotations cannot convey.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces, followed by the read-only caveat, the workflow, and the return shape. No filler and nothing buried.

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, but the description supplies the return shape ({proposal:{type, title, entries}}), the workflow, and the read-only guarantee. Given a 7-param all-optional tool with full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke it and act on the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretation beyond the schema: the 14-day cap, the busy-day quick-meal preference that gives busy_days its meaning, and the fact that output is a proposal the user can edit. That is real semantic value on top of well-documented params.

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 ('Propose a day or week menu up to 14 days from the user's saved and shared recipes') with clear scope. It also distinguishes itself from the write side by naming manage_menu action=save, so an agent can tell this apart from the sibling that persists menus.

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?

Lays out an explicit workflow: propose, show by day, let the user swap dishes, then save via manage_menu action=save, and notes the tool is read-only and saves nothing. It does not explicitly disambiguate against suggest_dishes, which is the nearest overlapping sibling, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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