Calorie-Tracking

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s]' a report, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it doesn't contradict any 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with critical details like parameter guidance, which would improve its utility without sacrificing brevity.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't.

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 input schema has one parameter ('startDate') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about its purpose or format. The description doesn't mention this parameter at all, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. This leaves the agent guessing about how to use 'startDate' effectively.

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 'Get weekly calorie consumption report' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('weekly calorie consumption report'), providing a basic understanding of what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_daily_summary' or 'search_food' beyond the 'weekly' vs 'daily' distinction, leaving ambiguity about scope and overlap.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_weekly_report' over 'get_daily_summary' or 'search_food', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for usage, leaving the agent without operational direction.

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