nutrition_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the analysis window semantics and, crucially, the interpretation caveat 'Association, not causation,' which prevents the agent from over-claiming causal links. It does not mention computation cost or data-sufficiency requirements.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the analytic subject comes first, outputs second, and the caveat last. The phrasing is dense with domain shorthand (%RDA+flags, GI), but no sentence is wasted.

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 read-only, single-parameter analytics tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, window semantics, output composition, and interpretation limits. The only gap is routing guidance against the many sibling query/report tools.

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 single 'days' parameter has no documentation in the schema beyond its title. The description compensates by framing it as the analytics window ('over N days'), clarifying that it drives the lookback period rather than acting as a filter — the schema default of 30 is the only remaining detail.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Nutrition analytics over N days') and enumerates the concrete outputs (deficiencies/excesses with %RDA flags, GI/sugar/sodium grouped by wellbeing category). It implicitly separates itself from raw-data siblings like query_nutrition, though it never names them.

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 explicit statement of when to use this report versus query_nutrition, get_trend, or get_weekly_report. The analytic nature is implied by the output description, but the agent must infer the selection condition entirely.

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