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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by stating the return fields (recipe ids, titles, images, nutrition summary), but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like rate limits or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause carries meaning. No fluff, no redundancy.

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?

It covers purpose, parameters, and return shape, and an output schema exists for further details. The main gap is the lack of guidance on the relationship with the sibling tool meal_plan_week and possible default behaviors (e.g., what happens if timeFrame is omitted). Still, it is substantially complete for a read-only idempotent tool.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining all 4 parameters: timeFrame values ('day' or 'week'), targetCalories, diet with examples (vegetarian/vegan/paleo), and the comma-separated format for exclude. This goes well beyond the bare schema and gives the agent everything needed.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Generate a Spoonacular meal plan' with explicit parameter scoping for timeFrame, targetCalories, diet, and exclude. It also lists return contents. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'meal_plan_week', which may also handle week plans, so it misses that sibling differentiation.

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 meal plan generation but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like meal_plan_week. There are no exclusions or alternative mentions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and description.

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