query_nutrition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: the flag thresholds (<70% of norm = deficient, >upper limit = excess). It does not disclose aggregation semantics, auth needs, or rate limits, so it is solid but not rich.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the headline computation and the flag rule both appear immediately. Slightly packed with parentheticals, but every clause carries meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the description instead conveys what the metrics mean (average, %RDA, deficiency/excess thresholds). For a one-parameter read-only query this is nearly complete, with only the usage-vs-sibling gap remaining.

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% and the single 'days' parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does imply the parameter's role via 'over N days' and a default-adjacent window, but never states the default of 7 or the accepted range, so compensation is partial.

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 computation (average daily intake of each nutrient over N days) with concrete outputs (%RDA and deficiency/excess flags). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling nutrition_report, leaving that distinction to inference.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. The sibling set contains nutrition_report, query_food, and get_health_summary, which plausibly overlap, yet the description offers no routing condition, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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