get_user_food_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Get' is consistent with that. The description adds useful behavioral detail: the entries are scoped to the authenticated user and are retrievable by date or entry ID. 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?

A single front-loaded sentence contains the verb, resource, and access paths with no filler. Every word contributes.

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 an output schema and readOnly/destructive annotations, the core calling information is present. The main gap is the missing clarification of the date/ID selection semantics; otherwise an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by explaining that 'date' is an epoch-day and that 'food_entry_id' is an entry ID, but it leaves the relationship between the two parameters unclear: both are optional and default null, and the description does not state whether one must be supplied or what happens if both are provided.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('authenticated food diary entries'), and the two access paths ('epoch-day or entry ID'). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_foods/get_food and add_food_entry without needing to open their schemas.

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 makes the resource scope clear, so an agent can infer it is for retrieving the current user's diary entries rather than searching the food database. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as get_weight_month or add_food_entry.

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