tp_get_nutrition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not mention return format, authentication needs, how the optional athlete parameter behaves for coaches, or any limitations. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and scope, earning a top score for conciseness and structure even though it lacks detail.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, this description is too minimal. It does not clarify what 'nutrition data' includes, how results are returned, or special considerations like athlete access for coach accounts. An AI agent would have difficulty predicting the tool's full behavior.

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%: all three parameters have descriptions in the schema, including date formats and the athlete parameter's coach-only note. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'nutrition data' and a scope ('date range'), making the primary function clear. It is distinguishable from the sibling tp_update_nutrition by verb, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or describe the nature of the nutrition data.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tp_update_nutrition. The name implies a read operation, but there are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or use-case instructions, leaving usage to be inferred.

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