CGM meal response

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 meaningful context about the computation sequence (baseline → peak → return-to-baseline) and the output band categories, which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary verb and resource, followed by output details. No wasted words, and the structure is perfectly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (peak delta, peak time, band), which is essential. It does not elaborate on edge cases or the meaning of the band, but for a read-only computation with comprehensive schema and annotations, it is sufficiently complete. Slight deduction for not mentioning how the band is derived, though not critical.

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 100%, so all parameters (meal_time, privacy_mode, window_hours) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, aligning with the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the burden.

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 explicitly states the operation ('Compute glucose response to a meal') and the exact outputs (peak delta, peak time, band). It is specific to a meal-response calculation, clearly distinct from sibling tools like cgm_glucose_window or cgm_daily_summary, and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage when a meal-response analysis is needed but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The intent is inferable but not directly guided.

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