Daily nutrition coach

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's role is to add context. It discloses that the tool produces a summary and a 'safe next action', which adds value but does not detail side effects or behaviors like handling missing wearable data beyond what auto_wearable describes. 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core functionality without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and every part adds value.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters, enums, and a nested object, the description does not cover expected output format, behavior for missing data, or edge cases. No output schema exists, yet the return structure is not described. The phrase 'Telegram-style coaching' hints at style but lacks 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?

Schema coverage is low at 11% (only auto_wearable has a description). The tool description does not explain the purpose or usage of parameters like date, focus, locale, meal_type, or nested wearable_context. Without compensation from the description, the agent lacks understanding of how to set these parameters.

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 what the tool does: it summarizes today's status, goal gaps, wearable context, and a safe next action, specifically for Telegram-style coaching. It distinguishes itself from siblings like nourish_daily_summary and nourish_goal_progress by specifying the coaching angle and the elements included.

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 implicitly suggests using this tool when a coaching summary with goal gaps and wearable context is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like nourish_daily_summary or nourish_goal_progress. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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