get_nutrition_daily_food_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns food items logged throughout the day including calories, macronutrients, and meal associations, which sets expectations for a read operation. It does not discuss side effects or prerequisites, but the 'get' semantics and simple single-date scope make those gaps minor.

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 compact and well-structured: a purpose sentence, a return-content sentence, and a single Args entry. There is no redundant filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

For a simple one-parameter daily read with an output schema available, the description is complete. It states the resource scope, the return content categories, and the required date format, leaving no significant gap for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides the necessary date format (YYYY-MM-DD) that the schema does not include, and it directly documents the only required parameter. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Get daily food consumption records for a date.' The second sentence clarifies what is returned — food items, calories, macronutrients, and meal associations. This clearly distinguishes it from nutrition siblings such as get_nutrition_daily_meals and get_nutrition_daily_settings.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving a single day's food consumption records. It provides a clear context for use, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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