Get Bevel food logs for a day

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context about what comes back (per-entry time, servings, macros plus day totals), but says nothing about ordering, units, or how soft-deleted entries affect the totals when includeDeleted is set.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the nutrient list is dense but each item tells the agent something about the payload. Slightly run-on, 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the per-entry fields and the day totals. For a two-parameter, read-only tool the only remaining gap is edge-case behavior around deleted entries and totals.

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%, so both parameters (date with its pattern and today-default, includeDeleted) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'on a day' without adding format or default information beyond that baseline.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('foods logged on a day') and enumerates the returned nutrients, which lets an agent tell it apart from bevel_log_food or bevel_search_food. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 phrasing — read a single day's food logs — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of when to prefer bevel_search_food or bevel_get_journal instead. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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