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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description confirms the read-only nature ('Read meal plan prescriptions') but adds no further behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It does not mention any additional traits like rate limits or response structure.

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 short but includes redundant instructions ('Always show the url field to the user') and a technical note ('[Flattened action: get_detail]') that may confuse. It starts with a clear verb-object pair, which is good, but includes extraneous content.

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 no output schema, the description indicates the return value ('full meals/foods'). It also suggests a workflow with the sibling 'list' tool. However, it fails to explain the 'account' parameter and does not mention any limits or optional behavior, leaving gaps for complete understanding.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It partially explains the 'link' parameter (as a prescription URL from the list action) but does not explain the 'account' parameter at all. This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 that the tool reads meal plan prescriptions and distinguishes between 'list' (giving URLs) and 'get_detail' (full meals/foods from a URL). It explicitly ties the tool's action to its name 'get_detail' and differentiates it from the sibling tool 'webdiet_prescription_list'.

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 when to use this tool: after obtaining a prescription URL from the 'list' action. It instructs to always show the 'url' field. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for similar tasks.

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