Get Fitatu User Settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: date resolution defaults to today in the user's Fitatu timezone, which is a non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know. This is valuable added context.

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 sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the optional-date behavior is stated succinctly. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is redundant or verbose.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is complete. It explains the primary function and the date-resolution behavior, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. Nothing essential is missing.

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%: the date parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its format and default behavior. The description repeats this information without adding new meaning, so it does not compensate beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('gets'), the resource ('the authenticated Fitatu user's ... settings'), and the specific settings types (energy, calculated, water). It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_user_settings (a setter) and get_current_user (user profile, not settings) without ambiguity.

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 as the read operation for user settings, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. The date-resolution behavior is described, but no explicit when-to-use vs. other tools guidance is provided; the guidance is mostly implicit.

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