Daily summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by listing the specific data categories returned (calories, macros, goals, water, steps, meal breakdown), but does not disclose behavior around the date parameter (e.g., default value or format). No contradictions with 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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'Returns', and includes the key content categories. No wasted words.

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 tool has one optional parameter, simple annotations, and an output schema. The description lists return contents, which is helpful, but omits all information about the date parameter, making it incomplete for effective invocation. The complexity is low, so it doesn't need much more, but the parameter gap prevents a higher score.

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 single parameter 'date' is not described at all in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to clarify whether date is required, its format, or default behavior. This is a critical gap for a one-parameter tool.

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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource as a daily summary with enumerated data types (calories, macros, goals, water, steps, meal breakdown). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_water_intake or get_weight, which focus on individual metrics.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_diary or get_nutrition_trends, but the name and content imply it is for retrieving a day's aggregate summary. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so the guidance is only implied.

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