Summarize a date range

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the exact accounting semantics of each field: nutrition counts every logged row whether ticked eaten or not, eaten_nutrition only ticked rows, activity_energy is kcal burned. The warning that both are whole-range totals rather than daily averages is a genuinely important interpretive caveat that annotations cannot convey.

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 core purpose and every clause carries information, with no filler. It is slightly dense given the stacked parentheticals on units and the get_day comparison, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be explained, yet the description still decodes the field semantics an agent needs to interpret the numbers correctly. Combined with the routing guidance to get_progress, nothing required for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and both date parameters are documented in-schema with the get_today referencing guidance, so the baseline is 3. The description adds range-level semantics ('totals over the whole range, not daily averages') but nothing further about the date parameters themselves.

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 Fitatu's own summary of a date range) and anchors it to the app's Summary tab so the agent knows exactly what data is returned. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_day totals and get_progress, so it is identifiable without opening the 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?

Names the alternative (get_progress) and the condition that selects it: 'For goals and what is left per day, use get_progress.' It also clarifies the relationship to get_day's totals, giving the agent both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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