meal_random

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld and idempotent, so safety is covered. The description adds the key trait that results are random (non-repeating per call), which is useful context the annotations do not convey. It says nothing about result shape, image/instruction fields, or reliability of the underlying source.

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 short sentence with no filler and the core intent front-loaded. It is efficient, though the same brevity is the cause of the missing usage and output context.

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 no-parameter random-pick tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits what a returned meal contains (name, category, area, instructions, image URL) and whether the pool is global, which the agent would benefit from knowing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the empty schema confirms no argument choices exist.

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 ('Get a random meal/recipe'), and the word 'random' distinguishes it from meal_search and meal_filter_by_* siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, but the action is 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?

No guidance on when to choose this over meal_search, meal_get_by_id, or the meal_filter_* variants. The only implicit cue is 'random', leaving the agent to infer that filtering/browsing should go elsewhere.

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