List intake

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent behaviors. The description adds valuable information: results are returned most-recent-first, filters are ANDed, and date is mutually exclusive with since/until. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 that front-loads the purpose and succinctly lists filters and their behavior (all AND together, most-recent-first). No 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?

With 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers filtering logic and sorting. It mentions all key filter categories. However, it does not mention the response_format parameter or that results are returned as JSON by default. Slight gap but still strong.

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?

Given high schema coverage (89%), the baseline is 3. The description adds logical relationships (AND filtering, mutual exclusivity of date with since/until), which helps the agent understand parameter interactions beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists local intake entries, specifies the key filters (date, since/until, meal_type, tag, source_trace, min_confidence, limit), and explains they are ANDed together. It also mentions sorting (most-recent-first). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nourish_log_intake or nourish_delete_intake.

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 explains when to use optional filters and that all filters are ANDed. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context provides sibling tools that cover logging, deletion, and summaries, so the agent can infer appropriate usage.

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