get_nutrition_daily_meals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the endpoint path: no return shape, no pagination, no auth or rate-limit notes, no indication of what a 'meal' record contains.

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?

It is a single short line with no filler, so it is not bloated. However, the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficient communication, and there is no structure to front-load.

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 tool with one required param and no output schema, the description still omits what the call yields and how it differs from adjacent nutrition endpoints. With annotations covering safety, more of the burden falls on describing the returned meal data, which is entirely absent.

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 coverage is 100% for the single cdate parameter, including format and UTC semantics, so the schema carries the meaning. The description's `{cdate}` placeholder merely echoes the parameter name and adds no interpretation beyond the schema.

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 only restates the tool name as an HTTP route ('GETs `/nutrition-service/meals/{cdate}`'), which is essentially a tautology rather than a statement of what the tool returns. It does not distinguish this from close siblings such as get_nutrition_daily_food_log, get_nutrition_daily_settings, or get_nutrition_food_log_range.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the text why it would pick this meals endpoint over the food-log or settings endpoints that share the same daily-nutrition space.

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