get_meal_plans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Retrieve'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential limitations such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no filters are applied (e.g., returns all entries). The description is brief but not misleading.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and optional filters. There is no redundant information or filler, making it appropriately concise and structured.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should provide more context about return values or entry structure, but it does not. It omits what a 'meal plan entry' contains, how results are ordered, or any response details. The description is sufficient for a simple read, but given the lack of structured metadata, it leaves agents guessing about the tool's output.

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% with descriptive parameter docs for to_date, from_date, and meal_type_id. The description does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema; it just summarizes the optional filters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already fully documents parameters.

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 strong, specific verb ('Retrieve') and specifies the resource ('meal plan entries from Tandoor'), along with optional scope (date range and meal type). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_meal_types (retrieves meal types, not plans) and create_tandoor_meal_plan (writes, not reads).

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?

The description implies use when retrieving meal plan entries, and the optional filters hint at flexible scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be used instead of siblings (e.g., get_meal_types for meal types), nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is implied rather than explicit.

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