Get food log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only, external-data profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context (per-meal breakdown, optional media) but is silent on the include_goals/include_nutrition defaults being true, on response size or rate limits, and on what happens when no food is logged. Incremental value over annotations, but not rich.

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?

Three compact lines, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then one line per parameter that needs clarification. No boilerplate, no restating of the tool name, every sentence carries information.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition covers the return contents and the tricky parameters well enough to call correctly. The remaining gap is the two undocumented boolean toggles (include_goals, include_nutrition), whose effect on the response is not stated.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for the two most error-prone parameters: date format 'YYYY-MM-DD' with today as default, and meal_id's provenance in mealDetails of an unfiltered call. include_media is explained, but include_goals and include_nutrition are left to be inferred from their names and schema defaults.

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?

The description names a specific verb-and-resource (foods logged in Garmin Connect's nutrition tracker) and scopes it to 'for a day', then enumerates the payload contents including serving sizes, calories, nutrients, goals, and per-meal breakdown. That is enough to separate it from hydration, weight, and daily-summary siblings by resource alone, 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?

There is real operational guidance: date defaults to today, meal_id limits to one meal and 'ids appear in mealDetails of an unfiltered call', which tells the agent to call without a meal_id first. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus siblings such as garmin_get_hydration or garmin_get_daily_summary, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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