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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: these are the user's real logged numbers, they must not be estimated, and 'what is left' — particularly protein — is a first-class output. Minor gap: no mention of what happens for a day with zero entries, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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 verb and scope, then trigger phrases, then the trust directive. The macro enumeration is dense but each item is a distinct returned field, so nothing is wasted.

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?

A zero-parameter read with rich annotations and an output schema needs only purpose, triggers and trust caveats, all of which are present. An agent can decide to call this and interpret the result without further information.

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 the baseline is 4 and the description has no parameter semantics to explain. It correctly spends no words on inputs and instead frames the implicit 'today' scope.

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 and resource: what the user has eaten today measured against their MALAI targets, enumerating the tracked macros (calories, protein, carbs, fat, fiber) plus remaining amounts and entry count. It implicitly separates itself from malai_get_food_log (aggregate vs entries) and malai_suggest_next_meal ('before suggesting what to eat') but never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrases ('how am I doing today', 'how much protein do I have left', 'am I on track') and a sequencing rule (call before suggesting what to eat). Also carries a 'do not estimate' directive steering the agent to read rather than guess. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for raw entry listings.

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