find_entries_by_food

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals important implementation behavior: Cronometer cannot search entries by food, so this tool reads the diary one day at a time and costs a request per day. It also discloses default date behavior. This is valuable context that annotations do not provide.

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 front-loaded with the core result, then gives a concrete use case, a cost warning, and parameter details. Every sentence adds useful information, and the structure is easy to scan with a clear Args section.

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 three-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core behavior, meaningful use cases, performance implications, and parameter defaults. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: food_id, start_date, and end_date. It provides format (YYYY-MM-DD) and defaults for the date parameters, though food_id is described only minimally as 'the food to look for.'

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 first sentence clearly states the tool returns every diary entry that references a specified food, including dates and amounts. This is a specific resource (diary entries) with a specific filter (by food), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_foods or get_food_log.

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 gives an explicit use case: use before replacing or retiring a food so its entries can be moved. It also explains the cost model (one request per day) and warns to widen the date range deliberately. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool, but the context is clear.

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