Goal progress

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context: 'no logging side effects, no explicit_user_intent required' and 'locale-aware next-action recommendations', which clarifies behavior beyond annotations. No contradictions found.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core function and return data. It efficiently conveys key information without extraneous words. Could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points), but overall it's well-sized.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values: per-day breakdown, period totals, averages, days_on_target, and locale-aware recommendations. It covers all essential aspects an agent needs to understand the tool's output and behavior, making it complete.

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 50% (only period has a description; response_format lacks description). The description adds meaningful context by noting 'All bucketed in the active timezone' for the period parameter, which is not in the schema. However, it could clarify response_format choices more explicitly.

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?

Description clearly states the tool computes per-day progress against configured goals for specific periods (today, yesterday, etc.), listing the metrics (kcal, protein, carbs, fat, water) and return details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nourish_daily_summary or nourish_weekly_summary by focusing specifically on goal progress, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly notes that the tool is read-only, has no logging side effects, and does not require explicit user intent, which helps guide safe usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for different scenarios, so it lacks full usage boundary guidance.

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