plan_and_shop

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

Annotations only assert readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds real value by disclosing the output shape: a day-by-day meal plan with costs followed by a deal-optimized shopping list grouped by store. It does not clarify whether the plan is persisted or what happens on repeated calls, which is the remaining gap for a 8-param planning tool.

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 capability statement is front-loaded, followed by trigger phrases, the routing claim, and exclusions in a tight block. Slightly dense, but every clause (triggers, NOT FOR alternative, return shape) carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema the description covers the return structure, and all 8 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The main omission is side-effect/persistence behavior, minor given the readOnlyHint annotation and the explanatory return summary.

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 100%, so every parameter already carries its own default and semantics (e.g. preferCuisines as a soft-preference map, slowOnlyOnDays 1-indexed). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 three concrete actions (score recipes, optimize a weekly meal plan, generate a shopping list) and declares itself 'the main entry point for weekly dinner planning.' It explicitly separates itself from the sibling generate_shopping_list, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

It supplies literal trigger phrases ('plan my week', 'what should we eat?'), a positive routing statement ('main entry point for weekly dinner planning'), and an explicit NOT FOR case with the named alternative (generate_shopping_list for pre-chosen recipes). Nothing is left to inference.

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