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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates the returned datapoint fields (stress_score, state, heart_rate), the trend values (rising|falling|stable), the lookback default/max, and a 'Not a medical device' limitation. It omits auth/privacy requirements, which is the main remaining gap for a health-data tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then return shape, then parameter guidance, then a caveat. Every sentence carries information; the 'Not a medical device' line is a legitimate disclaimer rather than filler. Slightly more verbose than strictly needed but not padded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and trend values, so an agent knows what to expect. Combined with parameter guidance, nothing critical is missing for correct invocation, though the sibling distinction and any auth constraints remain unstated.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for minutes (lookback window, default 5, max 60), but says nothing about session_id beyond the obvious. With only one of two params meaningfully enriched, this is adequate but incomplete.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (get state history for a session over time) and distinguishes itself from generic state tools by emphasizing the time-series nature. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_human_state, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from 'over time' versus a presumed point-in-time read.

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?

'Useful for detecting stress patterns during a conversation' gives implied usage context, and the minutes parameter guidance is helpful. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_human_state or get_trigger_memory, nor any when-not conditions, so routing remains inferred.

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