get_nutrition_food_log_range

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the Connect+ dependency and the fact it silently yields zero days for non-subscribers. It does not describe missing-day gaps or pagination, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that names the endpoint first, then the return contract, then the eligibility caveat. Efficient, though the trailing parenthetical 'returns no days then' is telegraphic and slightly cryptic.

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 2-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape, cardinality, and the Connect+ gate, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Date-format edge cases and pagination are left to the schema, which is acceptable here.

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%, so both date params and their YYYY-MM-DD UTC format are already fully documented; baseline 3 applies. The description only echoes startDate/endDate in the URL without adding format, timezone, or range-limit semantics.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (GET food log range), names the endpoint, and describes the return shape (`{dailyNutritionSummaries}`, one day-log per day with anything logged). That scope is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_nutrition_daily_food_log without opening either schema.

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?

Declares a strong selection criterion: it is the ONLY food-logging call that works without Connect+ (and returns no days in that case). It doesn't explicitly name the alternative sibling calls (e.g. get_nutrition_daily_food_log) for the Connect+ case, but the eligibility rule is clear context.

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