Get current meal plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that meal intentions are included in the result; it says nothing about behavior when no active plan exists. Some added value, but thin against the annotation baseline.

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, which is correctly sized for a zero-parameter read tool. It is efficient rather than padded, though correspondingly minimal.

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-argument, no-output-schema read whose annotations already cover safety and idempotency, the description covers the essentials. The only gap is unstated behavior when no active meal plan exists, which is minor given the tool's 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is a bare empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies: no parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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?

"Read the active meal plan and its meal intentions" states a specific verb (read) and resource (the active meal plan, plus its intentions), which distinguishes it from generic list_meals/list_v2_meals. It stops short of naming sibling tools like list_meal_intentions or prepare_create_meal_plan, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings such as list_meal_intentions, get_current_grocery_list, and prepare_create_meal_plan available, an agent gets no explicit signal for choosing this tool over those. Only the name implies the retrieval context.

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