mfp_get_water

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: it clarifies the return is always in millilitres regardless of account unit settings, citing the underlying endpoint and library, which is a helpful behavioral detail.

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?

Four focused sentences: purpose, unit clarification, args, returns. No redundant filler, and the unit note is essential.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, output schema exists). The description covers purpose, parameter, return format, and a key unit gotcha. No significant gaps.

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 input schema has one nested parameter, but description coverage is marked 0%. The description compensates by explicitly documenting the date parameter with format YYYY-MM-DD and default behavior, matching the schema's own description but reinforcing it.

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 opens with 'Get water intake for a specific date, in millilitres,' using a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from mfp_set_water and other getter tools.

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?

No explicit comparison to alternatives or exclusion criteria is provided. The phrase 'for a specific date' implies usage context, but it doesn't mention when to prefer this over mfp_get_diary or other tools.

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