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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it discloses the shape of the returned data, the special document-only PDF case, and that a null document.text signals a scanned/unreadable PDF. It even supplies the remediation step (tell the coach to use 'Turn into a trackable plan'), which an agent could not infer elsewhere.

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?

Front-loaded with the payload summary, then the edge cases in logical order; no filler. Slightly dense with nested backticked references, but every sentence carries operational value.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, including the degenerate PDF-only case and null handling. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret the result is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it tells the agent the parameter is the plan _id sourced from list_diet_plans. It stops short of stating format constraints (e.g., string/ObjectId expectations), so not a full 5.

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 ('Full detail of one client diet plan') and enumerates exactly what the response includes (time, section, calories, macros, ingredients, notes, PDF text). This clearly separates it from list_diet_plans and get_diet_plan_template in the sibling set.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to pass the plan _id from list_diet_plans, establishing the correct call sequence. It also gives conditional handling for the document-only case, though it does not explicitly contrast against get_diet_plan_template or list_diet_plans by name.

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