get_meal_plans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It communicates a read-only retrieval operation over a date range, which is the core behavior, but it does not mention ordering, date inclusivity, timezone handling, or any request limits. The output schema likely covers return shape, so this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a terse Args block. Every line serves a purpose, and the main action is front-loaded. No filler or redundant explanation.

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?

For a simple two-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the essentials needed to invoke it. However, it lacks usage guidance and any caveats about date range boundaries or result limits, and the sibling context is large enough that a small amount of tool-selection guidance would have made it more complete.

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 0%, so the parameter documentation in the description provides needed meaning. It identifies both required parameters and specifies the expected date format (YYYY-MM-DD), which goes beyond the raw string type in the schema. It could have added more constraints such as whether the range is inclusive, but for two simple parameters this is solid.

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 states a clear action ('Get') and resource ('meal plan entries') with a date range qualifier. It is unambiguous enough to distinguish from related tools like get_shopping_lists, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools that might also retrieve date-scoped data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or preferred use cases. The only contextual hint is the date range, which describes the input requirement rather than the decision to choose this tool.

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