get_saved_meal_items

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description is not required to restate those. However, it adds valuable behavioral context: authentication requirements ('Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first)'). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand a critical precondition. No contradictions with 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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence is the core purpose, and the second adds an essential prerequisite. It is front-loaded, brief, and 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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the main action and a key precondition. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., what fields each item contains). Since there is no output schema, the agent is left to infer the structure from the tool name and sibling context. This gap reduces completeness slightly.

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% (the single parameter 'saved_meal_id' has a description in the schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as constraints, format, or how to obtain the ID. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not improve upon 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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Get all food items in a saved meal.' This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like 'get_saved_meals' (which retrieves meal metadata) and 'add_saved_meal_item' (which creates items). The scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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 only mentions a prerequisite ('Requires profile auth') but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not compare with siblings like 'get_saved_meals' or 'add_saved_meal_item', nor does it specify the context needed (e.g., having a saved_meal_id). The agent is left to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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