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 safety profile is covered without the description. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: the per-logged-day averaging caveat (incomplete logging understates intake), the recommendation to check days_logged, the <70% / upper-limit thresholds, and the rule that limit-only nutrients are never flagged deficient. That is substantive, though it stops short of return-format details.

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 output shape and flag semantics are front-loaded, caveats follow, and the sibling routing plus the days param are packed into trailing sentences with no filler.

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 values need not be re-explained, and the description covers the interpretive quirks an agent would otherwise get wrong (averaging basis, days_logged, limit-only nutrients, flag thresholds). Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must carry it — and it does, defining days as the look-back window with default 7, matching the schema default. Slight credit withheld only because the format/range expectations of the window are not spelled out.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: average daily intake of every logged nutrient over the last N days, including the derived %RDA and deficient/excess flags. It explicitly distinguishes itself from nutrition_report (ranked summary with food↔wellbeing associations) and query_food (the meals themselves), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('am I getting enough X') plus two named alternatives with the conditions that select them, so when-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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