get_digest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool merges data from multiple sources, but does not disclose behaviors like error handling, data availability, or performance characteristics. Adequate but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an Args section. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every word adds value. No fluff.

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 that an output schema exists (handling return values), the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and benefit. It could mention that it is a read-only operation, but overall it is complete for a combined digest tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining period options ('week' or 'month') and end_date format ('YYYY-MM-DD') with default values. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get a comprehensive weekly or monthly digest combining nutrition, weight, training, and adherence.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('digest'), and the combination aspect distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual 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 says 'One call instead of five' which implies use this for a holistic view, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives. Guidance is implied but not explicit enough for an agent to decide between this and other tools.

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