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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the output is a 0-100 score and that it evaluates balance of protein, fiber, calorie density, and variety, which goes beyond the 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 concise, with a clear first sentence stating the function, followed by the evaluation criteria and a structured list of trigger phrases. It contains no redundant text and is well-organized for quick parsing.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose, the computation basis, the output scale, and when to use it. The trigger list covers the key invocation scenarios, making it contextually complete.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description and example for recipeSlugs. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool 'Rate the nutritional quality of a meal plan or set of recipes on a 0-100 health score' and lists evaluation criteria. It distinguishes from siblings like nutrition_analyze by focusing on whole meal plans/recipes rather than individual items.

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 section explicitly lists example user phrases that should invoke this tool, such as 'rate my meal plan' and 'health check my recipes'. It provides clear when-to-use context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of the top score.

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