get_food_entries_month

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states that profile authentication is required (auth check) and that the tool returns daily data summaries. The annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, and the description is consistent with these. The description effectively complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three short sentences that deliver essential information: what the tool does (daily nutrition summary), the output content (calories and macros), and a prerequisite (check auth status). No extraneous words are present.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, annotations declare read-only and idempotent), the description adequately covers the necessary details. It specifies the output fields (calories and macros) even without an output schema, which is helpful. A minor gap is the absence of mention of pagination or month format, but this is not critical for a summary 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter. The schema already explains that 'date' should be 'Any date within the target month (YYYY-MM-DD)'. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond confirming the date input, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool gets a 'daily nutrition summary for a month' including 'calories and macros per day', and specifies the input is a date within the target month. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_food_entries (which likely returns detailed entries) and get_weight_month (which returns weight data), making the purpose specific and unique.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to 'check_auth_status first' as a prerequisite, which is a clear usage guideline. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_food_entries, nor does it mention any exclusions or limitations (e.g., month range restrictions).

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