mfp_get_report

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that by explaining that the tool returns daily values plus summary statistics and supports markdown or JSON response formats, with no contradiction to 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 well structured with a purpose statement, usage note, Args list, and Returns section. It is mostly economical, though 'over a date range' appears in both the first and second sentences, creating minor redundancy.

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?

The description together with the schema covers the tool's inputs, defaults, response format, and return contents. It does not enumerate all valid report_name values or describe behavior for invalid or empty date ranges, which are useful but not critical gaps for a simple read-only report tool.

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?

Despite the top-level schema description coverage signal of 0%, the description compensates by documenting all four parameters: report_name, start_date, end_date, and response_format, including defaults and examples. It could be stronger by listing all valid report names and clarifying date range edge cases, but it covers the required semantics.

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 identifies a specific action: retrieving a nutrition report over a date range and returning daily nutrient values. It distinguishes this from diary lookup or measurement tools through the 'report' and 'date range' framing, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 statement 'Useful for analyzing trends and patterns in nutrition intake' gives clear situational guidance for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools such as mfp_get_diary, so it provides context but no exclusions.

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