Food log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content-level context — that results carry calories and macros — which matters since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about empty days, multi-entry days, or response shape.

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?

One short sentence with the resource, scope, and returned content front-loaded. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a read-only, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level (calories and macros) and the time scope. Minor gaps remain about per-entry structure and empty-day behavior, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional 'date' parameter already documents the YYYY-MM-DD pattern and the today default. The description's 'one day' only reinforces single-date semantics; it adds no format or defaulting information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (foods logged in Garmin Connect) and adds the scope (one day) plus content (calories and macros), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_hydration or get_daily_summaries. It lacks an explicit verb, but the intent to retrieve is unambiguous.

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 one day' implies a single-date query, but there is no statement of when to use this versus get_daily_overview, get_daily_summaries, or get_hydration, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer the routing from the tool name alone.

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