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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write operation. The description adds a warning about destination resolution ('do not guess'), which is a behavioral note, but it does not disclose side effects like potential duplicate entries or integration details. It is consistent with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The first states the action, the second gives a critical usage instruction. Every word earns its place, and the critical hint is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimal but adequate. It correctly points to list_destinations for destination resolution, which is a key prerequisite. However, it does not mention that calories is required or other behavioral aspects, though those are in the schema. It is slightly incomplete for a high-complexity tool.

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%, so all 15 parameters have descriptions. The description adds a hint about the destination parameters by instructing to resolve them from list_destinations, which supplements the schema's destination_id description. This adds modest value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Add one nutrition entry') with a clear resource. It uses 'Add' which implies creation, distinguishing it from update/delete, but it does not explicitly mention these alternatives, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 provides a directive on how to resolve the destination ('Resolve destination from list_destinations; do not guess'), which is a parameter-level instruction, but it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like update_nutrition or delete_nutrition. No conditions or exclusions are given.

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