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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that this is fire-and-forget, returns acceptance, and processes asynchronously. This adds meaningful behavioral context that the annotations do not provide. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: two sentences cover purpose, input method, required combination, and asynchronous behavior. Every sentence adds value and there is no unnecessary 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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, required fields, and async return behavior. However, the 'context' parameter is unexplained, and there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling logging tools, leaving the context incomplete.

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 description gives semantic meaning to 'prompt' and 'imageUrl' by explaining they carry text and photo URL respectively, and it clarifies the required combination. However, the 'context' parameter is completely undocumented, and with 0% schema description coverage this is a clear gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Registra') with a clear resource ('uma refeição') and explains the input mechanism (texto e/ou URL de foto). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing the same AI pipeline as the app's chat, which is concrete and useful.

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 implies usage for logging meals with text/image and states the required combination ('Pelo menos um de prompt ou imageUrl é obrigatório'). However, it does not explicitly compare this tool with siblings like dietaai_diary_logs, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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