Weekly or monthly report

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the Premium gating (top_foods becomes null, top_foods_note explains why), the 31-day free-tier range cap, and null-for-weight semantics. This is exactly the kind of access/limit context annotations cannot carry.

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 opening purpose sentence is front-loaded, but the rest is a dense block that spends most of its length enumerating return values (nutrition totals, eaten vs logged, weight fields, top_foods contents) that the output schema already supplies. That return-shape detail is largely redundant and crowds out the routing/limit guidance.

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 report tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description supplies the remaining edge cases an agent needs: free-tier truncation, null top_foods, null weight, and the longer-range alternative. Nothing needed to call it correctly appears to be 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 dates are fully documented in the schema (including the get_today counting tip), so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter 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 ('a weekly or monthly report (or one of any range) in one call') and immediately delineates scope against siblings like get_range_summary and get_top_foods. An agent can tell exactly what it returns 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?

It names an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: 'the range is at most 31 days; get_range_summary gives the totals of a longer one.' That is real routing guidance, though it is buried mid-paragraph rather than stated as front-loaded when/when-not guidance, and it does not cover the get_day/get_today boundary.

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