get_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. It adds some context about week offsets but lacks details on what 'available recipes/meals' entails (e.g., pagination, data structure).

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded (main purpose first, optional parameter second). Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information without waste, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the purpose and parameter usage but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like response format or error handling, which could be useful for an agent despite the simplicity.

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 the week_offset parameter thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optionally specify a week offset to see future menus,' which aligns with but doesn't expand beyond the schema's details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get') and resource ('current week's available recipes/meals from HelloFresh'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like get_delivery_schedule or get_past_orders by focusing on menu/meal availability rather than delivery logistics or order history.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to see available recipes/meals) and includes an optional parameter for future weeks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., get_recipe_details for specific recipes), missing full differentiation.

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