Cycle recommend nutrition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions support for a PCOS-aware mode via cycle_irregular flag, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, any error conditions, or what side effects occur. The description adds some context but is insufficient on its own.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, usage tip, feature note. No superfluous words. However, it could be slightly more structured, but overall very concise.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the format of returned recommendations, how the phase is determined, or error handling. The feature note is helpful but does not achieve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the history parameter (period history) and cycle_irregular (PCOS-aware mode), but does not mention the today parameter or provide syntax or format details beyond the schema. Partial coverage, not fully compensating.

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 tool returns nutrition recommendations for the user's current phase based on period history. The verb 'returns' and resource 'nutrition recommendations' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like cycle_recommend_training, though the mention of 'nutrition' helps.

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 suggests combining with wellness-nourish for full meal planning, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools. The prerequisite of having period history is implied but no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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