get_daily_nutrition

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying that returned macro values are null if untracked, that nutrients only appear if targets are set, and that the response includes confidence levels. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, bullet-point explanation of the response, and a concise Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description fully explains the response structure, default behavior, and conditions for data inclusion. It is complete for effective use.

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 input schema has only one parameter, 'date', with no description. The description adds the format 'YYYY-MM-DD' and explains that it defaults to today, which is meaningful beyond the schema's default null. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 it returns a daily nutrition summary with consumed macro and micronutrient totals. It explicitly mentions that it covers every nutrient the user tracks in Cronometer, differentiating it from sibling tools like get_macro_targets or get_food_log which serve different purposes.

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, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_food_log or get_nutrition_scores. The usage context is implied but not contrasted with siblings, lacking explicit 'when' and 'when not' guidance.

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