get_meal_plan_week

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals that it 'fills all seven days' (vs. Cookidoo omitting empty days) and that it resolves custom recipe IDs to names, images, durations, and links — a data-enrichment behavior beyond a plain read. The 'matches the `?date=YYYY-MM-DD` parameter' note adds API-parity context. Slightly less strong because it doesn't disclose error cases or auth requirements.

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 three sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains behavioral enhancements, and the third provides API-parity context. Every sentence earns its place with distinct information.

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 a single simple parameter, an output schema is present (so return values are covered), and no nested objects. The description covers purpose, behavioral enhancements, and API parity. It's slightly short of a 5 because it doesn't note any prerequisites (e.g., requiring a Cookidoo connection via connect_to_cookidoo, a clear sibling dependency given the sibling list).

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% — the single `date` parameter is fully documented as 'First day of the seven-day window, formatted YYYY-MM-DD.' The description reinforces this meaning by explaining that the returned window 'starts with the requested date.' Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the parameter and the description adds modest confirming value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get Cookidoo's complete seven-day meal-plan window.' It specifies the verb (get), the resource (meal plan), and the scope (seven-day window), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_recipe_details or get_shopping_list_ingredients.

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 explains when to use this tool by contrasting it with Cookidoo's normal behavior ('omits empty days and returns custom recipes as bare IDs'). It clarifies what the tool adds (fills all seven days, resolves custom recipe IDs). The mention of the `?date=YYYY-MM-DD` parameter ties it to the web planner context, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives for exclusions.

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