find_meals

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description only needs to add context beyond those. It adds useful source provenance ('OpenStreetMap and ORP provider menus'), but does not disclose behavior such as how location defaults work, what happens with no results, or how 'fit the diet' is determined.

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?

The description is a single, short sentence with no filler and the core resource front-loaded. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the lack of parameter and usage detail.

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?

Given 6 optional parameters and only a vague noun phrase, the description leaves too much to inference. The output schema helps, but the description does not explain how to shape a query or what distinguishes this tool's behavior from related tools.

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 does not compensate. It mentions 'diet' vaguely but does not explain diet_pattern, cuisine, radius_m, limit, or how lat/lon are used. For a tool with 6 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 identifies the resource ('places to eat') and the key constraint ('fit the diet'), which distinguishes it from siblings like find_facilities and food_lookup. It lacks an explicit verb like 'search' or 'find', but the tool name and noun-phrase description make the purpose reasonably clear.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the user needs places to eat that match a dietary pattern. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to related tools like food_lookup or find_facilities.

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