get_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context — it clarifies that the date range is 'inclusive'. However, it doesn't describe what the returned summary contains or how output is structured. With strong annotations, the baseline is met and slight value is added.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It conveys the core purpose compactly. Could arguably add a bit more usage context, but for what it covers, it is very concise.

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 and strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description covers the core purpose adequately. But the 0% schema coverage on parameters means the agent must guess at date/start_date/end_date combinations, and the description offers no help there. A little more parameter semantics context would raise this.

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 compensate. The description mentions 'one date or an inclusive date range', hinting at the date/start_date/end_date parameters. However, it doesn't explain the relationship among the three params (all optional) or specify which combinations are valid — e.g., can you pass both date and start_date? This is minimal compensation for 0% schema coverage.

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 verb 'Summarize' and the resource 'meals', and scopes it to 'one date or an inclusive date range'. This is clear and specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_meal_history or list_meals, though 'summarize' implies aggregation which distinguishes it somewhat.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_meals, get_meal_history, or export_meals. The description doesn't state what a 'summary' includes (totals? per-day breakdown?) or when summarization is preferable to listing. No exclusions or context provided.

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