garmin_nutrition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered. The description adds only the scoping constraint (explicit date, presumably single-day, not a range) and says nothing about auth, rate limits, or data availability windows.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource list comes first and the scoping constraint second, so an agent can stop reading after one line.

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, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. For a one-parameter read-only tool the description is nearly sufficient, missing only date format/range guidance.

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 meaning; it partially does by stressing the date must be explicitly requested, implying no defaulting to today or relative expressions. However it never states the accepted date format or that only one day can be queried, leaving part of the semantic gap open.

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 ('Read') and specific resources ('food logs, nutrition totals and goals'), which clearly separates it from the sibling metric tools like garmin_daily_summary and garmin_sleep. It is clear what the tool returns, though it doesn't explicitly name the Garmin/nutrition domain boundary against siblings.

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 phrase 'for an explicitly requested date' implies usage context and warns against relative/ambiguous dates, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, nor a pointer to an alternative tool for other nutrition queries. Usage is only implied.

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