meal_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline: no statement about match behavior (substring vs exact), result limits, or what a match returns.

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 no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is as much under-specification as it is concision.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description says nothing about result shape (IDs vs names vs thumbnails), pagination or result caps, or what happens when nothing matches. An agent would have to probe to learn how to consume results.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the single 'query' parameter is undocumented there, so the description's 'by name' does add real meaning: the query is a meal name, not an ingredient, category, or ID. It still leaves ambiguity about partial matching, casing, and multi-word queries.

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 (search) and resource (meals/recipes) plus the matching dimension ('by name'), which distinguishes it from siblings like meal_filter_by_category and meal_filter_by_ingredient. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as meal_filter_by_area, meal_random, or meal_get_by_id. The 'by name' phrasing only weakly implies that this is a name-lookup tool rather than a browse/filter tool.

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