Get Fitatu Day Plan Items

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, lowering the bar. The description still adds value beyond annotations by revealing the default local-date behavior and by clarifying how returned identifiers map to fixable/removable entries versus food definitions. 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines purpose, the second gives actionable ID-handling guidance for sibling tools, and the third states the default date. The most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 simple, read-only, optional-parameter fetch with a rich output schema, this definition is highly complete. Annotations cover safety and open-world behavior, the schema documents both parameters, and the description supplies the critical cross-tool usage guidance. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats the date default already stated in the schema and adds nothing about withRating. It doesn't harm, but it doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Fetches Fitatu meals and concrete day-plan entries." It clearly differentiates this retrieval tool from the mutation siblings (add_meal_items, update_meal_item, remove_meal_items, etc.) by explaining what the returned IDs mean and which ones should be passed to those mutation tools.

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 gives clear downstream context: it tells the agent to copy mealKey with itemId into update/move/remove tools and warns that productId/raw recipeId are not removable entries. It also explains the default-date behavior. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative fetch tools, so it misses the top tier.

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