get_daily_nutrition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that 'only tracked nutrients' appear and that to surface specific nutrients, targets must be set in Cronometer. It also describes the response structure and null values, which is valuable beyond 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 concise (under 100 words) and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then breaks down the response, then notes on tracked nutrients, then parameter. No extraneous information, every sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and the condition for nutrient appearance. It could mention that data is user-specific, but this is implied by the context of the tool suite. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to decide on usage.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It provides format ('YYYY-MM-DD') and default behavior ('defaults to today'), adding meaning beyond the schema's bare property definition.

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 'Get daily nutrition summary with consumed macro and micronutrient totals,' specifying the verb ('get') and resource ('daily nutrition summary'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by describing the aggregate nature of the output, such as 'summary: flat macro totals' and 'nutrients: full list of tracked nutrients,' which is distinct from tools like get_food_log or get_nutrition_scores.

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 implies usage for obtaining daily nutrition totals but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. It does not state when not to use or provide comparisons with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer based on the output described.

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