get_nutrition_daily_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It signals a read-only operation through 'Get' and 'Returns the user's nutrition goals,' which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens for invalid dates, whether data may be absent, or any authentication or scope implications beyond 'the user's.'

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 well-organized: a front-loaded summary line, a clear explanation of return contents, and a formatted args section. Almost no wasted words, though the first sentence slightly restates the tool name.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, the key return categories, and provides the required date format. It does not need to explain return values because output schema exists. It could be more complete only by adding explicit alternative routing to related nutrition tools.

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 schema only defines 'date' with no property description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by specifying the date format as YYYY-MM-DD, which is genuinely useful for correct invocation. For a single required parameter, this is adequate and adds meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states a specific action — 'Get nutrition plan/settings for a date' — and explains what it returns: calorie targets, macronutrient goals, and plan configuration. This distinguishes it from sibling nutrition tools like get_nutrition_daily_food_log and get_nutrition_daily_meals, which are about logs and meals rather than settings/goals.

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?

Usage is implied by the return content: an agent would use this when it needs nutrition goals or targets for a specific date. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related siblings such as get_nutrition_daily_meals or set_nutrition_daily_settings, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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