health_get_food_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that only hand-logged data appears, that cache is used by default with auto-sync, that 'live' forces a re-fetch, and that empty days are omitted. This goes well beyond a simple one-line summary and gives the agent accurate expectations.

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 (~110 words), front-loaded with the main purpose, and organized into clear sections for behavior, arguments, and return values. Every sentence adds useful information; there is no fluff or repetition.

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's moderate complexity—optional date handling, cache semantics, and a live override—the description covers all necessary context. It even describes the return shape despite an output schema being present, making the tool self-sufficient for an agent.

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 0% description coverage, so the tool description must compensate, and it does. It explains start_date formats including '30d', default behavior for both dates, and the meaning of 'live' in the context of cache re-fetching. This is meaningful semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 a specific verb plus resource ('Get daily food and water log summary') and clearly differentiates this tool from siblings by scoping it to food/water logging and calorie/water intake. It states exactly what data is returned, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides clear context on when this tool is appropriate: it covers food/water logs from connected apps, only includes hand-logged entries, and explains cache versus live behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for selection among related health tools.

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