Evening check-in

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which is consistent. The description adds that output is Telegram-friendly but does not disclose behavioral traits like data source or handling of missing data. Annotations carry the transparency burden adequately.

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, efficiently conveying the tool's action and output format. It is front-loaded but could benefit from slightly more structure to improve scannability.

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 9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and only 11% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns or how to use parameters, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke 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 description coverage is only 11% (only auto_wearable has a description). The tool description does not explain any parameters, leaving the agent without guidance for the remaining 8 parameters. No value added beyond the sparse 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 checks late-day protein, calories, and hydration gaps and produces a compact Telegram-friendly next step. It identifies the resource and purpose but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like nourish_daily_summary or nourish_hydration_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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for evening check-ins but lacks when-not-to-use or comparison with sibling tools.

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