get_food_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that results include food entries, hydration entries, and a hydrationByDay rollup. It details date format support ('today', 'yesterday', YYYY-MM-DD, ISO timestamps) and local timezone interpretation. Constraints are explicit: ranges up to 90 days, results capped at 1000 entries with a truncated flag. There is no mention of authentication or rate limits, but for a read-only tool this is generally sufficient.

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 a single paragraph of about 150 words. It front-loads the main function and then provides usage guidance and constraints. While every sentence adds value, it is somewhat verbose and could be more tightly organized. A bulleted breakdown might improve scannability, but it is not excessively long.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the returned data, constraints, and alternative tool. It lacks explicit mention of output structure details but does describe the rollup. The tool's behavior is well-specified for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying the exclusive use of date vs. from+to, explaining that ranges are inclusive and capped at 90 days, and detailing date format nuances including timezone handling. This context goes beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 retrieves full individual food entries with macros, nutrients, hydration data, and a rollup. It provides specific use cases ('what did I eat yesterday?') and explicitly distinguishes from get_nutrition_log for daily totals. This differentiates it from siblings effectively.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: use this for detailed entry-level queries about 'what they ate' and for analysis, while referencing get_nutrition_log as the alternative for daily totals. It also explains parameter combinations (EITHER date OR from+to). However, it doesn't list every scenario where the tool should be avoided, but the provided context is clear enough.

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