meal_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only aggregation over historical transactions, but it does not explain date-default behavior, permissions, output shape, or how empty/missing data is handled.

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 single sentence is compact and front-loaded, but its fragmentary style makes it less clear than a well-structured sentence naming the operation. It is concise without being sufficiently informative.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and completely undocumented parameters, the description is too thin for a statistics tool. It lists some dimensions but does not explain the aggregation behavior or how the date filters shape the results.

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?

The schema has two date-range parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not name 'since' or 'until', their accepted date formats, or what happens when they are omitted. The word 'historical' only weakly implies temporal filtering.

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 lists the dimensions covered (spending, favourites, canteens, weekdays) and the data source (historical transactions), which hints at an aggregation/reporting tool. However, it is a sentence fragment without a clear verb, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as meal_history or orders.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus meal_history, orders, balance, or other siblings. The phrase 'actual historical transactions' implies it is not a live-menu tool, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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