Daily summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. The description adds context about what is summarized (totals, confidence, source coverage) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication needs or rate limits.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds actionable usage guidance. No fluff or redundant information.

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 annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. It explains the main output and the optional comparison feature. It does not explain the meaning of 'confidence' or 'source coverage,' but those are likely clear from context. A minor gap is not mentioning what the summary includes (e.g., per-nutrient breakdown), but the comparison block implies it.

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 high (75%), with descriptions for 3 of 4 parameters. The description adds significant value for the compare_to parameter by explaining its effect (adds a comparison block with per-nutrient deltas) and providing a usage example. The other parameters are well-documented in 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 tool summarizes local intake totals, confidence, and source coverage for a date, using a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from siblings like nourish_hydration_summary (hydration only) and nourish_weekly_summary (weekly).

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 explicit guidance on using the compare_to parameter for trend coaching, including example values and their effects. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or how it differs from nourish_daily_coach, which is a potential alternative.

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