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

Annotations only carry readOnlyHint=true; the description earns credit by disclosing return content: planned vs extra meals, compliance status and photos. That is genuinely useful payload context an agent can't get from the schema. It stops short of saying whether an unlogged day returns empty, null, or a stub record.

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 compact sentences, the resource and time scope are front-loaded, and nothing is redundant. Every clause contributes new 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?

For a 2-required-param read with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers what the tool reads and what it returns. The main remaining gap is not routing to the range variant for multi-day queries, which matters given how similarly named the sibling is.

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 documented, including the date pattern and where clientId comes from, so the description adds no syntax detail. It reinforces that the date scope is exactly one day, which is mildly useful framing. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Meals a client logged') and scopes it to 'one day', which implicitly separates it from get_client_diet_logs_range. It also clarifies the data is actual intake rather than the plan. It never names the multi-day sibling, so the differentiation is inference-based 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?

'For one day' implies the condition that selects this tool over get_client_diet_logs_range, but the alternative is never mentioned. There is no statement of prerequisites (e.g., needing clientId from list_clients) or of what happens when no meals were logged that day.

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