list_meal_plans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions optional parameters for filtering and pagination, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns structured data. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second efficiently lists parameters with minimal formatting. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. For a list tool with filtering and pagination, more information on response format, limits, or error handling would be needed for full contextual understanding.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all four parameters (from_date, to_date, page, page_size) and provides format hints (YYYY-MM-DD), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions, defaults, or constraints, leaving some semantics unclear.

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 ('List') and resource ('meal plans'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_meal_plan' (singular retrieval) and 'create_meal_plan' (creation), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_meal_plan' for single retrieval and 'list_meal_types' for related lists, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It merely states what the tool does without usage context.

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