Dietary Build Bounded Intake Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'validated' precondition and the bounded/point-estimate scope, but does not disclose behavior details like how results are returned or what happens with invalid scenarios. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds rich behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word adds meaning, clearly stating the action, the resource, and the input condition.

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?

This is a complex tool with a deeply nested schema and many related siblings. The one-sentence description is insufficient to guide an agent on what 'bounded' means, how to determine if a scenario is 'validated', or how this result relates to other intake summary tools. Even with an output schema present, the invocation context is under-specified.

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 must compensate for the single 'request' parameter. It says 'for a validated dietary scenario', which hints at the scenario object, but does not explain the request structure, validation requirements, or how the scenario should be constructed. This is minimal compensation for an undocumented 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 uses the specific verb 'Compute' and names a precise resource ('a point-estimate or bounded intake summary for a validated dietary scenario'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like dietary_build_probabilistic_intake_summary by explicitly covering only point-estimate and bounded variants, not probabilistic.

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 implies the tool is for validated dietary scenarios, giving some context on prerequisites. However, it does not state when to use this tool over alternatives like the probabilistic or uncertainty intake summary tools, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions beyond validation.

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