Meals for one

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: the fixed 299k/free-delivery scope, the cheapest-first ordering, and the min_order caveat that a cheap meal may not meet a restaurant's basket minimum.

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?

Front-loads the scope and constraint, then the trigger phrase, then the caveat – three short units with no filler. The line breaks are slightly awkward formatting but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover safety. Given the simplicity of a 4-param, non-nested read tool, the description supplies the scope, ordering, and caveat an agent needs; only sibling-relative routing 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 lat/long bounds, limit, and max_price are already fully documented in the input schema. The description's 'at most 299k Toman' is a fixed scope cap rather than an explanation of the max_price parameter, so it adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (single-person meals) with concrete qualifiers: at most 299k Toman, free delivery, cheapest first. It does not name or differentiate from close siblings like food_find_cheapest or food_menu, so an agent must infer the 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?

Explicitly gives the triggering intent ('Use for "cheap meal for one"') and adds a real caveat about min_order that affects whether results are usable. It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when-not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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