get_nutrition

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower; the description still adds useful behavioral context by scoping exactly what data is bundled in the response (totals, goals, meals, hydration, sweat loss) and confirming the default-date behavior. It stops short of noting data availability caveats for days without logged food.

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?

Two tight sentences with the payload contents front-loaded and the default behavior trailing. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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 and rich annotations, the description only needs to convey scope and defaults, which it does. A brief note on how the hydration/sweat-loss figures relate to logged intake would make it fully self-sufficient for interpreting results.

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 already documents the accepted formats ('YYYY-MM-DD', 'today', 'yesterday'). The description only restates the default, adding no new meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: retrieves the Garmin Connect food log for one day, and enumerates the contents (totals, goals, meals) plus hydration and sweat-loss data. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_body_composition or get_recovery by subject matter, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Defaults to today' gives an implicit usage cue for the no-arg case, but the description never states when an agent should pick this over get_day_detail or the generic garmin_api_get escape hatch. Usage is inferable from the resource name rather than stated.

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