mealpulse

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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions cost per endpoint ($0.10) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether actions are read-only, destructive, require authentication, or have rate limits. For example, 'AI-synthesized' suggests generation but no safety or side-effect info. This is insufficient for a tool with 19 parameters and no 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 moderately concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it repeats the endpoint list which is already defined in the schema, adding some redundancy. The structure is clear but could be more efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (19 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how parameters vary per action, what the response format looks like, or how multiple parameters interact. The high-level overview is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, many parameter descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'dietary' described as 'dietary'). The description adds no further explanation about how parameters interact with endpoints. It only lists endpoint names and costs, which are already in the schema's action enum. The description does not compensate for the poor schema descriptions.

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 it is a 'global meal planning and culinary intelligence API' and lists specific endpoints like weekly meal plan, recipe generation, grocery list, etc. This distinctively identifies the tool's domain and differentiates it from sibling 'pulse' tools which cover other domains.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating the tool's purpose for meal planning and culinary tasks. The sibling tools are all in different domains, so the context alone differentiates. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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