plan_and_optimize_group_meal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides minimal behavioral detail. It says 'coordinates' and 'calculates' but doesn't disclose whether it performs any writes, requires confirmation, handles errors, or returns a plan versus executing orders. For an autonomous multi-step tool, this is insufficient.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently lists key inputs but could be slightly more structured by separating usage from functionality.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, multi-person coordination, no output schema, no annotations), the description is notably incomplete. It omits critical behavioral aspects like whether the tool only plans or also executes, how results are returned, and any constraints or side effects.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description repeats high-level inputs but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what's already in the schema, so it earns the baseline 3.

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 clearly names the tool's function as a multi-person food order optimizer and lists its inputs (dietary constraints, budgets, delivery SLAs). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling execute_group_cart_and_split, but the verb 'optimizer' and 'coordinates' suggests planning rather than execution, hinting at a boundary.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_group_cart_and_split, or what prerequisites are needed. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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