get_mealplan_week

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: no statement about permissions, what happens with an empty range, whether days with no entries are returned, or how the week is keyed. It only discloses the date format, which is a parameter detail rather than behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding; the date-format constraint is placed immediately after the scope. It is efficient, though so terse that the 'week' vs. 'range' tension in the name is never resolved.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the format hint covers the main invocation risk. Still, for a two-required-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description should state inclusive/exclusive bounds and range constraints to be 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?

Schema coverage is 0% — the two properties carry only titles ('Start Date', 'End Date') — so the description's '(YYYY-MM-DD)' format note is genuinely valuable and prevents a common formatting error. However, it does not clarify whether start_date/end_date are inclusive, whether end must be >= start, or any maximum range, leaving real ambiguity for two required parameters.

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 and resource ('Obtiene el plan de comidas') plus the scope ('un rango de fechas'), which clearly frames this as a read over a time window and separates it from mutation siblings like set_mealplan_entry and delete_mealplan_entry. Minor friction: the tool name says 'week' while the description describes an arbitrary range, leaving a small ambiguity about intended granularity.

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 read nature and date-range scope imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of clear_mealplan_week or get_recipe as alternatives, and no prerequisites or limits stated. The agent must infer usage from the verb alone.

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