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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, which the description correctly aligns with ('Read'). The description adds value by disclosing bulk support via 'patient_ids' and the ability to filter by date range, which are behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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?

The description is concise with three sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It could be slightly tighter by removing the redundant '[Flattened action: list]' line, but overall it is efficient and avoids unnecessary detail. Every sentence contributes to understanding.

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?

Given the complexity of 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality (listing with filters, bulk support) but misses details on return format, pagination, timezone handling, and the 'account' parameter. For a read-only tool with good annotations, it is adequate but leaves gaps in operational context.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that 'start' and 'end' relate to date range filtering, 'patient_id' filters by patient, and 'patient_ids' enables batch execution. However, the 'account' and 'timezone' parameters are not explained, and the format of date strings is omitted. The description adds meaning for 4 of 6 parameters but lacks completeness.

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 clearly states 'Read schedule/agenda in Dietbox' and specifies filtering by date range/patient, making the tool's purpose specific and distinct from the sibling tool 'dietbox_agenda_summary' which handles summaries. The verb 'Read' plus resource 'agenda' and the explicit mention of filtering provide a clear, actionable purpose.

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?

The description implies usage for listing agenda items and mentions bulk support, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the alternative 'dietbox_agenda_summary' or when not to use it. There is no guidance on prerequisites or conditions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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