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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds context that the tool generates suggestions using real recipes and returns meal recommendations, which gives a clearer behavioral picture beyond the annotation hints.

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 compact: two purposeful sentences plus a relevant trigger list. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?

For a tool with three optional params, good annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately conveys core behavior and the general return type. It could offer more detail on the output structure (e.g., whether it includes recipe IDs or names), but it is sufficient for a simple meal planning 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter fully described in the schema. The description adds a little context (e.g., cuisine/dietary preferences map to the 'preferences' parameter), but it largely paraphrases the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create', 'Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('meal plan suggestion') with scope ('specified number of days', 'cuisine and dietary preferences'). It also states the output ('breakfast, lunch, and dinner recommendations using real SAVOR Dish recipes'), which distinguishes it from generic meal planning tools and from the sibling 'nutrition_daily_plan'.

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 TRIGGERS block provides explicit example phrases indicating when to use the tool, covering a wide range of user intents. However, it does not include when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives, so it stops short of full explicit guideline coverage.

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