Goal progress

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: 'Read-only: no logging side effects, no explicit_user_intent required' and describes locale-aware recommendations and output granularity. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying side-effect-free operation and user intent requirements.

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 long, front-loading the core purpose and then providing key details about outputs and behavior. Every sentence adds value: the first defines scope (periods, nutrients), the second details outputs and special features. No redundant or irrelevant 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 no output schema, the description explains the output structure in detail: per-day breakdown fields, period totals, averages, days_on_target, and recommendations. It also notes locale handling. The parameters are partially described. A more complete description would explicitly mention the response_format parameter and its effect. Overall, it covers the essential aspects for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and 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 50%. The description mentions the permissible period values ('today / yesterday / last_7_days / last_30_days') which aligns with the period parameter, adding clarity about the time windows. However, the response_format parameter is not addressed in the description, and its schema description ('json') is minimal. The tool description partially compensates for the schema gap but does not fully cover both 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 it computes per-day progress vs configured goals for specific nutrients (kcal, protein, carbs, fat, water) over defined periods. 'Compute' is a specific verb and 'per-day progress vs configured goals' is a well-defined resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling summary tools by focusing specifically on goal progress, but does not explicitly differentiate from related tools like nourish_daily_summary or nourish_weekly_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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither specifies prerequisites nor suggests scenarios where this tool is preferred over other summary or goal-related tools. The absence of usage context leaves the agent to infer its applicability.

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