get_nutrition_scores

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the scoring source, target coverage, and the confidence level returned, which goes beyond the annotation hints without contradicting them.

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 clear sections for returns, usage, and arguments. It is somewhat wordy in the returns listing, but every part contributes useful context and the key information is front-loaded.

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 single-optional-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, output, usage boundaries, parameter format, and default behavior. With an output schema present and annotations providing safety hints, nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by specifying the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and its default behavior (defaults to today). This gives the agent everything needed to correctly supply the only parameter.

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 the tool returns nutrition scores with per-nutrient consumed amounts and category grades. It also distinguishes itself from get_daily_nutrition by specifying this is Cronometer's own scoring focused on nutrients with targets.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('see how close each nutrient is to its target') and when to use get_daily_nutrition instead ('when you need everything that was actually eaten'). It also explains the target-only limitation, leaving no ambiguity about appropriate use.

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