get_nutrition_daily_food_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation is a read ('Get', 'Returns') and describes what is returned. However, it does not mention timezone/date-boundary semantics, page size, error behavior, or any other behavioral edge cases. This is modest disclosure but not enough to be considered fully transparent.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second adds return-content context, and the Args section is a clean one-liner. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It clearly identifies the date input, the output content, and the intended resource. It is missing only a distinction from get_nutrition_daily_meals and any caveats about day-boundary interpretation, which are minor 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 only defines 'date' as a string with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by documenting the required 'YYYY-MM-DD' format and tying it directly to the parameter. With a single parameter, this is complete.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Get daily food consumption records for a date.' It also adds useful detail about returned content (calories, macronutrients, meal associations). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling get_nutrition_daily_meals, so it misses the highest bar for sibling differentiation.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_nutrition_daily_meals, log_food, or search_foods. The only usage context is that it works for a specific date, but there are no exclusions or alternative-selection criteria.

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