Nutrition trends

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

Annotations already establish safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds useful detail about grouping behavior (day/ISO week/month) and computed metrics (averages, goals, stability, deviations), which enhances understanding beyond the structured hints.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and omits unnecessary detail. It is concise yet informative, covering the core functionality without verbosity.

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 tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the main behavior (aggregation and metrics). It could clarify terms like 'stability' or 'goals' but is otherwise complete for a read-only aggregation 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 partially compensates by explaining the aggregation parameter (day/week/month) and clarifying 'ISO week'. However, it does not elaborate on start_date/end_date semantics beyond their names, leaving some ambiguity about date range behavior.

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 a specific verb ('Aggregates') and clearly identifies the resource ('daily summaries') with aggregation granularity and computed metrics. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_daily_summary or get_diary.

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 analyzing trends over a date range, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like compare_periods or get_daily_summary. No clear exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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