list_meal_entries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and mentions the available filters, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, the default limit (aside from schema), or what entry fields will be returned. These are meaningful gaps, but the core non-mutating behavior is transparent.

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 two short sentences with the main action front-loaded. Every word earns its place: the resource is named, and the filters are summarized without redundant detail.

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 list tool with five optional, fully documented parameters, the description is adequate but not complete. Since there is no output schema, the description could usefully explain what an entry contains or the default sort/return behavior. Still, an agent can likely invoke it correctly based on the schema alone.

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 schema already documents each parameter meaningfully. The description adds a high-level grouping of filters (date, date range, meal type) but does not add detail beyond the schema. The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema covers it.

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 ('List'), a distinct resource ('logged meal entries'), and the key filtering dimensions (date, date range, meal type). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_meal_templates, create_meal_entry, and get_diet_daily_summary by specifying logged entries rather than templates, writing, or summaries.

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 implies usage for retrieving historical food logs, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools such as list_meal_templates or get_diet_daily_summary. It provides no exclusions or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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