Get Nutrition Plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this returns only the single active plan, that it can return null when none exists, and that it includes full recipe details. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'Returns' and the tool name imply a read operation.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Returns the single active nutrition plan') before expanding with useful detail about the returned data and the null case. Every element earns its place and nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, explains the returned structure, lists the content categories, and handles the not-yet-generated case. An agent can invoke it without further clarification.

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 tool has no parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the zero-parameter baseline, the description adequately covers this aspect by focusing entirely on the return value rather than adding redundant parameter details.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('the single active nutrition plan'), and clarifies scope ('single active') and result content. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling nutrition plan tools that create, update, or delete plans.

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 makes the retrieval purpose clear and specifies what the tool returns, so when an agent needs the currently active nutrition plan this is the obvious choice. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling list and 'active' qualifier supply enough context.

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