Get Garmin food log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and closed-world scope, so the description's added value is the domain behavior: goals are adjusted to include active calories, food totals are per serving × servings, and empty meals appear only when the user actually logs food. That is meaningful context beyond structured fields, though it doesn't cover error/failure modes (e.g. unauthenticated or no-data responses).

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the per-serving caveat and the logging prerequisite. No filler, though the third clause could be folded in more smoothly.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly sketches the return shape (daily totals versus goals, then per-meal foods) and the main content caveat. It stops short of noting behavior when no data exists for the date, but is otherwise sufficient for a single-optional-parameter read 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 the single date parameter already documents the YYYY-MM-DD format and today-in-local-time default. The description adds no further parameter semantics, which is acceptable at baseline given the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: "One day's food log from Garmin Connect" with the exact data returned (calories, carbs, protein, fat, goals, meals). It is unambiguously distinct from siblings like garmin_get_hydration or garmin_get_weight.

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?

Usage is only implied via "One day's" and the schema's default-today note; there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or prerequisites (e.g. that the user must have food logging enabled is stated as a caveat about content, not a selection rule).

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