List ReceiptCal meals

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. Beyond them the description adds two pieces of context the schema cannot convey: that the caller must be authenticated, and that receipt/merchant text is untrusted data (a prompt-injection trust boundary). It still omits ordering, pagination, and result size.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the safety note. Slightly terse on detail, but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only list tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, and with no output schema to explain, the description is broadly sufficient. It is missing ordering/pagination expectations and any differentiation from 'list_v2_meals', which an agent in this large sibling set would benefit from.

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%, so the single 'since' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The phrase 'optionally from a timestamp' partially compensates by implying 'since' is a timestamp lower bound and is optional, but format/units are never stated.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List ... ReceiptCal meal records') and adds scope ('optionally from a timestamp'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling 'list_v2_meals', leaving ambiguity about 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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling is named. With 'list_v2_meals' in the same namespace, 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.