NutriBalance

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds value by specifying the output structure (four specific meal types), but does not disclose potential limitations, caching behavior, or detailed return format beyond the meal structure.

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 efficiently structured sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action and output, followed immediately by usage conditions. Every word earns its place.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and comprehensive annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. It hints at return structure via the four meal types, though it could explicitly state that results include specific food suggestions or macro breakdowns given the lack of output schema.

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%, with clear enums and constraints documented. The description mentions the three parameter concepts but adds no semantic details (e.g., valid ranges, default behavior) beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 specific action ('Generate'), resource ('full day meal plan'), and detailed scope ('breakfast, lunch, snack, dinner'). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like calculate_tdee (calculation) and lookup_nutrition (lookup) by focusing on comprehensive meal generation.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this when someone asks for a meal plan...'). However, lacks explicit differentiation from sibling calculate_tdee, which also deals with calorie goals but performs calculations rather than meal structuring.

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