Probable missing meals

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description goes beyond this by adding that the tool never creates entries and does not claim the user actually ate, which is important context for interpreting the results as probabilistic rather than definitive.

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 two brief, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It states the core function first, then adds a safety clarification.

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?

The output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, but the description lacks context for a 4-parameter tool. It does not explain detection criteria, how to interpret 'suspiciously empty', or when to use this tool, making it incomplete for proper 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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not mention any parameters. While start_date and end_date are self-explanatory, maximum_recorded_calories and meals are not explained, leaving the agent to infer the threshold and filtering behavior from the schema defaults and names.

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 finds suspiciously empty meal buckets, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from write tools by noting it never creates entries and from get_diary by focusing on missing meals rather than actual entries.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies its use for identifying missing meals but does not state when to prefer it over get_diary or get_daily_summary, nor does it explain cases where it should not be used.

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