List intake

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as safe. The description adds behavioral context like filter conjunction, date mutual exclusivity, privacy_mode effects, and default sorting, which goes beyond annotations.

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 of 20 words, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no superfluous 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 tool has 10 mostly optional parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description adequately covers filter behavior, ordering, and privacy modes. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With 90% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by explaining filter combination logic and privacy mode options, but does not significantly exceed baseline for a high-coverage 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 'List local intake entries' with specific verb and resource, and the optional filters distinguish it from sibling tools that perform other actions like log, update, delete, or memory listing.

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 filtering behavior (AND, date ranges, optional filters) and ordering (most-recent-first). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools like nourish_list_memory or nourish_search_food, which could be alternatives.

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