Get meal recommendations

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

The description usefully discloses a non-obvious side effect ('the backend records that recommendations were shown'), which is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotent annotations and explains why this 'get' is not pure. It stops there, saying nothing about rate limits, cost, or whether repeated calls change output.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose and count limit land first. It is arguably too terse for the missing information, but there is no wasted text to trim.

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 tool with two fully undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a competing sibling, the description leaves too much unsaid. An agent can invoke it, but not confidently choose it or set servings/max_minutes meaningfully.

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% and the description never mentions the two parameters. The bounds on servings (1-12) and max_minutes (5-240) are documented only in the schema, and there is no explanation of what either controls or whether they are optional.

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 states a specific verb and resource (get meal recommendations) plus two useful scoping facts: 'up to three' and 'pantry-aware'. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling get_personalized_recommendations, leaving the agent to guess which recommender applies.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With a directly competing sibling (get_personalized_recommendations) in the toolset, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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