rate_meal

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

With no annotations to carry the burden, the description is thin on behavior: it does not state whether an existing rating is overwritten, whether a meal must already exist, what side effects occur, or what the response contains. It only states the basic action.

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?

One clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning: the action, the scale, and the selecting dimensions (date and meal type).

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 five parameters, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It omits date format, meal type values, subdomain semantics, auth requirements, and overwrite behavior.

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 description clarifies that quality and quantity are rated on a 1-5 scaleasiendoish, which the schema lacks. However, it does not explain date_str format, valid meal_type values, or the optional subdomain parameter, leaving important semantics unexplained at 0% schema description coverage.

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 verb 'Rate' plus object 'a meal' states the core action clearly, and the rating scale (1-5) is included. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling meal-related tools such as choose_meal or sign_off_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?

No guidance is provided for when to use rate_meal versus other meal-related tools, nor any prerequisites like authentication or an existing meal record. The phrase 'for a date and meal type' gives context but no selection criteria.

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