Get a meal request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about not-found handling, authorization, or return shape — so it contributes nothing an agent does not already have.

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 wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than deliberately tight given the gaps in usage and behavioral guidance.

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 simple single-parameter read with a full annotation safety profile, the definition is minimally adequate. With no output schema, the description could reasonably say what a meal request contains or what happens when the id is not found, and it does neither.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'By identifier' at least confirms the parameter's role as the lookup key, but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the UUID pattern already expressed structurally in the schema.

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 (Read), resource (meal request), and scope (one, by identifier), which distinguishes it from the sibling get_latest_meal_request and the prepare_* variants. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.

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?

No when-to-use condition, no exclusions, and no alternative named. An agent cannot tell from the description when to call this versus get_latest_meal_request or get_current_meal_plan beyond the bare word 'identifier'.

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