Cycle recommend nutrition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool's non-destructive nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting v0.3.3 supports 'cycle_irregular: true' for PCOS-aware mode, which informs behavior beyond the schema. No contradictions 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core functionality is stated first, followed by a useful integration tip and a version-specific feature note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 recommendation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential input (period history), the output concept (nutrition recommendations), and a relevant option (PCOS-aware mode). It does not describe the return format or any privacy implications, but given the annotations and simplicity, 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description carries some burden. It implicitly clarifies 'history' (period history) and explicitly explains 'cycle_irregular' (PCOS-aware mode), but it does not add meaningful semantics for 'today' or 'privacy_mode' beyond what the schema already provides. The description partially compensates for the low coverage but not fully.

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 uses a specific verb ('returns') and a clear resource ('nutrition recommendations for the user's current phase'), immediately distinguishing it from the sibling 'cycle_recommend_training'. It is concise and unambiguous 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Given period history') and suggests combining with 'wellness-nourish' for full meal planning, which guides complementary usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name direct alternatives, so it lacks exclusion criteria.

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