get_daily_nutrition

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining that null values occur for untracked macros and that nutrients are included only if tracked. It also describes the response structure. Annotations already indicate safety and idempotency, so additional behavioral details are sufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses bullet points for the response structure and provides necessary context without extraneous details. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return values and behavior. It explains nutrient inclusion logic and null handling. The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description is complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates with a dedicated 'Args' line specifying the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and default behavior (today). This fully explains the sole parameter.

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 'Get daily nutrition summary with consumed macro and micronutrient totals.' It specifies what the tool returns (summary with macros, nutrients list) and distinguishes from siblings like get_macro_targets (targets vs consumed) and get_food_log (log vs 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 explains that nutrients appear only if tracked in Cronometer and advises setting targets to surface specific nutrients. It provides implicit guidance on when to use (daily consumption) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives.

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