Read intermittent fasting

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: days without fasting are silently omitted, and scheme can be null. It does not discuss pagination or truncation behavior at the 62-day boundary.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and range limit before the field-by-field explanation. The middle clause is dense and parenthetical ('its eating_periods ... next to expected ...'), but every element maps to real response semantics rather than padding.

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?

With an output schema present the description need not re-explain return shape, yet it usefully flags the two semantic quirks an agent would otherwise misread (omitted fasting-free days, null scheme). Combined with rich annotations and fully documented parameters, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 coverage is 100% and both date parameters carry their own guidance about resolving relative dates via get_today, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by imposing the practical 62-day maximum span on from_date/to_date, a limit the schema itself does not express.

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 and resource ('Read the user's intermittent fasting') plus the scope ('range of up to 62 days'), which cleanly separates it from the other read tools like get_day, get_range_summary, or get_habits. It also names the response entities (days, eating_periods, expected, scheme), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves.

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 range cap ('up to 62 days') is an actionable usage constraint, and the parameter descriptions route the agent to call get_today first when the user speaks in relative dates. There is no explicit when-not guidance, but no sibling covers fasting either, so the routing risk is low.

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