get_diet_daily_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the response contains totals and meals grouped by type, which goes beyond the tool name. However, it does not specify what the totals measure, what 'type' means, whether water is included, or how the date window is interpreted, leaving key output behavior ambiguous.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action and the main output characteristics with no filler or redundancy. Every phrase contributes directly to understanding what the tool does.

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?

Although the tool is simple with one well-documented parameter, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values more fully. It only says 'totals and meals grouped by type', leaving the agent uncertain about exact response fields, which totals are included, and how grouping works.

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 100%, and the only parameter, date, already has a format description (YYYY-MM-DD). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a specific resource 'daily diet summary', and it adds useful return-structure detail: 'totals and meals grouped by type'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_meal_entries, get_diet_profile, and get_water_intake, so an agent can tell it apart without inspecting their schemas.

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 implies aggregate, date-based use through 'daily summary' and 'totals', but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_meal_entries or get_day_entry, and it names no alternatives or exclusions. The intended use is reasonably clear, but the guidance is only implicit.

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