choose_meal

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, and it fails to do so. 'Order/choose' implies a mutating action, but the description does not state whether a prior meal selection is overwritten, whether the order can be reversed, what side effects occur, or what happens if the chosen number is invalid.

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 short and front-loaded: one sentence for purpose, one for parameter shorthand. No filler words, but the second sentence is very terse and could have been clearer with proper formatting or a full sentence.

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 mutating action with no annotations and no output schema, this description leaves important gaps: no auth requirements, no date format guidance, no mention of what the API returns, and no warning about irreversible side effects. More context is needed to call it confidently.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for meal_type ('snack'|'lunch'|'afternoon_snack') and number (1-based among chooseable menus), but date_str and subdomain remain semantically undefined despite being properties in the schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'order/choose a meal for a date', and it valuably defines meal_type allowed values and the numbering scheme. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_meals, sign_off_meal, or rate_meal, but the verb and the meal-specific focus make the primary purpose 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The phrase 'among the chooseable menus' vaguely implies a prerequisite step, but the description never tells an agent that they should first query available meals (e.g., via get_meals), nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication or active sessions.

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