Daily nutrition coach

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it provides a summary and a safe next action, consistent with annotations. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey.

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 a single sentence and is concise, but given the complexity of parameters, it is under-specified. It front-loads the main purpose but omits necessary detail.

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 8 parameters, 3 enums, a nested object, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to use date, locale, focus, meal_type, wearable_context, workout_context, recent_intake_id, or response_format, nor the nature of the output.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the 8 parameters, including the 3 enum parameters and the nested object wearable_context. This leaves the agent with no guidance on how to fill parameters, which is a major gap.

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 it summarizes today, goal gaps, wearable context, and suggests a safe next action for coaching. The verb 'summarize' and listed resources give a clear purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like nourish_daily_summary.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for Telegram-style coaching' implies a specific context but does not exclude other use cases or mention sibling tools.

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