score_recipes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the return content (deal coverage %, estimated cost, confidence levels per ingredient), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention cost/latency of the compute or whether the optimized plan is persisted, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by clearly delimited USE WHEN and NOT FOR clauses. Every sentence carries routing or output information; there is 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 9-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, and the shape of the returned scoring data, which compensates for the missing output schema. It leaves the interplay of 'optimize' with the plan-constraint parameters to the schema, so it is not quite exhaustive, but no essential calling information is missing.

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 the schema already explains all nine parameters (days, optimize, cuisine/protein caps, exclusions). The description adds only the vague phrase 'optionally optimize,' not new semantics for any parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Score all saved recipes against current deals') and states the optional behavior ('optionally optimize a weekly meal plan'). It also names the sibling tools it is not (generate_shopping_list, plan_and_shop), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any 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 has an explicit USE WHEN section with a concrete example intent ('what's cheapest this week') and an explicit NOT FOR section that routes to two named alternatives. There is nothing left to infer about when to select this tool.

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