List meal intentions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the set of statuses returned and says nothing about ordering, pagination, scope, or empty-result behavior, so it contributes little beyond structured data.

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. It is as short as a list tool description can be while still naming the resource and its statuses.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate to identify the call but does not describe what a meal intention record contains or how results are ordered or bounded. The missing return-shape detail matters because no output schema exists to fill the 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantics to compensate for; baseline 4 applies. The description cannot add parameter meaning because there are no parameters.

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 (list) and resource (meal intentions), and enumerates the statuses returned (planned, prepared, consumed). It does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as list_meals, list_v2_meals, or get_current_meal_plan, so an agent still has to guess which listing tool to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no named alternative among the many listing siblings. Usage can only be inferred from the name, which is exactly the ambiguity that matters here given list_meals and get_current_meal_plan exist.

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