Cycle phase guidance

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

The annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral context by noting the v0.3.3 version, the luteal_extended placeholder, and that the cycle_irregular flag 'surfaces the clinician-defer warning' in the response. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent an understanding of conditional output behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently includes version information and a key flag behavioral note without fluff. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's function and special cases.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose, special phases, and flag behavior, which is adequate for an agent to call it correctly. It does not describe output format or error cases, but the lack of an output schema and the read-only annotations make those less critical. It could be slightly richer in distinguishing use cases from similar tools, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema already describes privacy_mode and cycle_irregular with explanatory text. The function description adds only a similar note about the cycle_irregular flag ('surfaces the clinician-defer warning') and mentions the phase placeholder, but does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints beyond the enum and booleans. With 67% schema description coverage and little additional detail, the description does not significantly raise parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 states the verb ('Returns') and the resource ('evidence-informed nutrition + training + hydration recommendations') for a given phase. It also names the specific phase extension (luteal_extended) and the cycle_irregular flag, making its focus distinct from specialized siblings like cycle_recommend_nutrition or cycle_recommend_training.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention when to pick combined guidance versus the specialized nutrition/training tools, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by its purpose, with no explicit 'use this instead of X' note.

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