get_nutrition_log

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose the returned data categories and the date-based scope. However, it does not explain what happens when the optional day is null/omitted, whether the tool defaults to today, or how invalid dates are handled.

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 focused sentence with no filler. The key scope ('for a day'), format, and returned content are all front-loaded in an easily parseable structure.

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 one-parameter getter this is reasonably complete, especially given the content list and date format. The main missing piece is the semantics of the optional null/default day, and with no output schema an agent still has to infer the exact response shape.

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 is the only source of meaning for the 'day' parameter. It usefully adds the YYYY-MM-DD format and the 'for a day' semantics, but it fails to explain the schema's default null value, leaving ambiguity about omitting the parameter.

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 identifies a specific resource (nutrition log), a required date scope (a day, YYYY-MM-DD), and the returned content (calories, macros, meals). It is clear but does not explicitly state a verb or differentiate itself from the sibling get_nutrition_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_nutrition_status, nor any mention of prerequisites, default-day behavior, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. The intended use is only implied by the name and the day parameter.

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