food_card

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

The description discloses useful behavioral details: it produces text plus a PNG, defaults to today, and includes workouts for that day. With no annotations provided, it still does not cover side effects, authentication needs, delivery mechanism of the PNG, or rate limits, leaving partial transparency.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently enumerates the option values with parenthetical clarifications. Every phrase earns its place with no repetition of schema defaults.

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 low-complexity tool with three optional parameters, the description covers the main semantics and output format. However, with no output schema or annotations, an agent still has to infer how the PNG is returned and what date format is expected, so completeness is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It provides meaning for date (default today), theme (dark, light, clear), and style (full or story), and adds the important clarification of what each style means. Date format is not specified, but the core semantics are present.

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 identifies the tool as a shareable card for a day of food, with text plus a PNG, and mentions that workouts appear on it too. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'generate' or 'returns', but the intent is unambiguous and it is visually distinct from siblings like session_card.

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 use when a user wants a visual food-day card, and the defaults suggest typical behavior. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as food_day or session_card, nor does it mention cases where it should not be used.

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