get_weekly_menu

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 does disclose the return format ('Formatted menu for the week... grouped by date and menu line') which is helpful, and 'Get' strongly implies read-only behavior. But it stops short of explicitly stating there are no side effects, what happens for weeks without meals, or any error conditions.

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 a crisp docstring: one sentence of purpose, a concise Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds information, with defaults and optionality front-loaded. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 low-complexity read tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what data is returned and how it is grouped, plus all parameter defaults. The only missing piece is a pointer to list_profiles for resolving profile names when more than one profile exists, but that is a minor gap.

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 input schema has no description coverage (0%), so the description must compensate. It does so well by explaining all three parameters: profile optionality, year default, and week definition as 'Calendar week number'. This goes beyond the bare schema titles, though it does not mention allowable ranges (e.g., week 1-53) or how profile names relate to list_profiles.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Get the weekly meal plan for a given week.' It clearly names the resource (weekly meal plan), the scope (a specific week), and distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_order_history and add_to_cart, which serve different purposes.

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 gives useful context about defaults ('year defaults to current year', 'week defaults to current week') and when the profile parameter can be omitted ('Optional if only one profile is configured'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it direct the agent to list_profiles when multiple profiles exist.

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