Get meal plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what happens if the ID does not exist, no auth/space context, no mention of shape or size of the returned plan.

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?

Four words, zero padding and front-loaded, which is structurally sound. However, the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than true conciseness — nothing beyond the title is conveyed.

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 tool is simple and annotations carry the behavioral profile, but with no output schema the description should at least sketch what a meal plan record looks like or how a missing ID is surfaced. Neither is present, leaving the agent to call blind.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema offers only 'number' with no meaning attached. 'By ID' merely confirms the id parameter identifies a meal plan; it gives no hint about where to obtain such an ID (e.g., from list_meal_plans) or whether the number is a global or space-scoped identifier.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('meal plan') with a scoping qualifier ('by ID'), which distinguishes it from the sibling list_meal_plans. It is not a tautology, but it does not name the alternatives or clarify what a meal plan record contains.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus list_meal_plans (find one) or update_meal_plan/delete_meal_plan (operate on one). The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the single-record lookup path.

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