get_meals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses several behavioral details beyond the name: the date defaults to today, own scores appear only when already submitted, and the response is JSON containing meal categories plus rating fields. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a read-only lookup its behavior is well described.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds a compact details line parenthetically, and closes with clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence carries useful information and no filler.

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 tool with two optional parameters live question giving brief reasoning with code, no required fields, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return shape. It is slightly incomplete in not describing how 'school' subdomains are obtained or how empty data is handled, but those are minor gaps given the overall clarity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it does. date_str gets an explicit YYYY-MM-DD format and empty-for-today behavior; school is explained as a subdomain needed only with multiple schools. This goes well beyond the bare schema defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get school meal information for a given date.' It further specifies the content (menu choices, order state, rating window, class averages) and the read-only intent, which clearly distinguishes it from the rating-related sibling rate_meal.

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 gives clear usage context: use it for meal information on a date, defaulting to today, and only supply school when multiple schools exist. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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