suggest_meals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it states the tool only suggests and never buys, explains inference from history, ranking by previous orders, absence of timeslots, default soup inclusion, and that missing or closed menus are not invented. These are substantive behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 and front-loads the core purpose before adding constraints. Some phrases are telegraphic, but nearly every clause carries useful information about scope, ranking, defaults, or unavailable menus.

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 behavioral context is strong for a tool with no annotations, but the definition is not fully complete: it leaves key parameter semantics for 'days' and 'start' undocumented, and there is no output schema or return-shape explanation. It is adequate for understanding the tool's intent, but not fully self-contained.

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 description must compensate for all three parameters. It partially clarifies lunch behavior via 'lunch' and 'lunch_no_soup,' but it does not explain the 'days' default of 14, the 'start' parameter, or how those parameters shape the suggestion range.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Suggest lunch + dinner for each day.' It also immediately distinguishes the tool from purchasing siblings by saying 'never buy,' and clarifies that results are ranked by previous orders rather than being raw menus or order history.

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 gives clear usage context and boundaries: it is for suggestions, never purchases, has no timeslots, and requires explicit 'lunch_no_soup' selection when soup should be omitted. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as buy_meal or menu, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully comparative.

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