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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation, and the description's 'Generate' is consistent. The description adds value by listing the output components (therapeutic foods, meal structure, etc.), but it does not disclose how parameters like duration_weeks or user_context affect the output.

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 a single sentence that effectively communicates the action and expected deliverables. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no redundancy, and every clause adds meaningful information.

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?

The description provides a good high-level overview of the return contents (therapeutic foods, meal structure, foods to minimize, monitoring markers, citations), but with no output schema and a nested user_context object, it lacks details on output shape and how the optional parameters affect results. More context would be needed for full agent decision-making.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate for unclear parameters. It only references '47 chronic conditions' (matching the condition enum) but does not explain what user_context is for or how duration_weeks influences the protocol. Most parameters remain semantically empty beyond their basic schema types.

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 the tool generates a whole-food plant-based protocol for one of 47 chronic conditions and lists what it returns. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'whole-food plant-based' scope distinguishes it from sibling protocol tools, though no alternative is explicitly named.

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 usage context is implied: an agent would infer to use this when creating a plant-based protocol for a condition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to alternatives like glp_protocol or query_nutrition_topic.

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