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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the two genuinely useful behavioural facts — daily granularity and a taken-vs-planned comparison — but says nothing about how days with no scheduled supplements are handled, timezone, or whether the range bounds are inclusive.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing to trim, though the brevity pushes the burden onto the other dimensions.

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 two-parameter read-only report the description is minimally sufficient, and 'taken vs planned' conveys the shape of the result in the absence of an output schema. It still leaves open what a returned day looks like and how gaps/paused supplements appear, which matters for an adherence report.

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 carry the parameter burden. 'for a date range' merely restates the startDate/endDate field names and adds no value: no inclusive/exclusive bound semantics, no timezone, no maximum range, and no note that the format is enforced by the schema pattern.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (get adherence) and adds the meaningful qualifier 'taken vs planned', which tells the agent this is a completion-ratio style report rather than a raw log. It is distinguishable from stackwell_log_intake or stackwell_get_today_intake, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from near-neighbours like stackwell_get_day_detail or stackwell_get_nutrient_totals.

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?

'for a date range' implies the query context but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never names an alternative. An agent must infer that this is the report to pick over get_today_intake or get_day_detail when a multi-day adherence view is needed.

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