get_combined_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool returns merged data by date and lists parameters, but does not discuss behavioral traits like data freshness, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. Transparency is adequate but not deep.

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 description is very concise, using a clear header, bullet points, and no filler. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is 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's simplicity (3 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers all parameters, defaults, and domain options. It could mention case-sensitivity or data boundaries, but is sufficient for use.

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% description coverage, but the description's Args section compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, default values, and acceptable options (e.g., domains list). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 is a unified cross-domain query that returns merged nutrition and health data by date. It explicitly says 'One call replaces multiple tool calls' and lists the domains it can return, making its purpose distinct from sibling tools that focus on single domains.

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 when multiple domains are needed ('One call replaces multiple tool calls'), but it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or list alternatives. The context is clear enough for effective selection given the sibling tools.

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