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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for going beyond them: the 31-day maximum range per call, the need for sequential calls over longer periods, user-timezone resolution of 'today', and the meaning of the 'excluded from totals' flag. These are behavioral traits no annotation or schema conveys.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and scope, then uses clear labeled sections (INFER, ROUTING) so an agent can scan quickly. It is longer than strictly necessary and restates the update_meal/delete_meal relationship in two places, but nearly every sentence carries usable 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description still covers the non-obvious data semantics (excluded-from-totals imports), the range cap, and default date resolution. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented, so the baseline is 3; however the description adds inference guidance the schema lacks (default date to today, mapping 'this week' to date=Monday/end_date=today, omitting end_date for a single day). That is meaningful semantics beyond the raw field definitions.

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 a specific verb+resource (list logged meals) with explicit scope (date or date range) and enumerates the returned fields (ID, date, type, food description, macros). It also clarifies its relationship to update_meal and delete_meal, letting an agent distinguish it from log_meal and show_meal_diary without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('what did I eat today/this week/yesterday?', review logged meals, resolve an ID after an ambiguous match) and when it is not needed (no longer required before update_meal/delete_meal). The ROUTING section names the alternatives show_meal_diary and show_week_macros along with the conditions that select each.

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