mfp_get_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds return-value details ('daily values and summary statistics') and date-range scoping, but no additional behavioral caveats. There is no contradiction 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?

The description is front-loaded with the primary action and is generally efficient. It is slightly redundant, stating 'Returns daily values' in the opening and again in the 'Returns' section, but overall it is concise and well-organized.

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 read-only report tool with rich schema and annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and return nature. It does not enumerate all possible report names or error scenarios, but the openWorldHint and existing schema reduce the need for more 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 nested schema already provides descriptions for all parameters, including defaults and examples (e.g., report_name examples, date formats, response_format). The description restates these without adding new semantic meaning, so it adds little beyond the existing structured metadata.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a nutrition report over a date range' and specifies it returns daily values for a selected nutrient/metric. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mfp_get_diary or mfp_get_measurements, though the emphasis on 'analyzing trends' hints at its distinct role.

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 usage context: 'Useful for analyzing trends and patterns in nutrition intake,' which tells the agent when to choose this tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full guidance.

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