daily_briefing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states 'No API calls — reads from DuckDB', indicating read-only, local behavior. This is sufficient behavioral context for an agent, though additional details about idempotency or speed could be added.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second elaborates components, third explains parameter. No redundant information, well-structured, and front-loaded with the most important 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return values. It adequately describes the data sources (MacroFactor, Garmin) and sections, and the parameter behavior. It is complete for a daily summary tool, though it could explicitly mention that only the specified date's data is returned.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage (minimal title and default), but the description adds critical meaning: 'Date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Empty = today.' This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail, making parameter usage clear.

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 clearly states it provides a 'complete day view combining MacroFactor nutrition + Garmin health data'. It lists specific sections (nutrition, adherence, body, activity, sleep, training) and positions itself as the cross-data tool, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual data sources or metrics.

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?

The description implies usage for a holistic daily summary ('complete day view'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_food_log or get_weight_trend. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons with siblings.

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