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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description usefully adds that the comparison targets followed reference profiles (upper limits vs RDAs), but says nothing about the time window ('daily' — today vs. rolling?) or what the response contains.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with what is returned (total daily nutrient intake) and followed by the comparison baseline. Zero filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only aggregation tool with rich annotations, this covers the essentials. The remaining gap is the granularity and time window of the totals (today only? per-nutrient breakdown?), which matters for an agent deciding whether to call this or drill into day detail.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description's mention of 'active stack' and 'followed reference profiles' implicitly confirms those inputs are resolved server-side rather than passed in.

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 resource (daily nutrient totals) and scope (active stack, compared against followed reference profiles with upper limits and RDAs). It is clearly distinct from intake-log siblings like stackwell_get_today_intake, but never names a sibling explicitly to reinforce the boundary.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus stackwell_get_today_intake, stackwell_get_adherence, or stackwell_get_day_detail. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'compared against the user's followed reference profiles', leaving the agent to infer whether this is the right tool for a nutrient-adequacy question.

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