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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only lists returned data types but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for a tool with no 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 extremely concise (one sentence), which avoids verbosity. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of clarity and completeness, making it less useful. It is not optimally structured as it lacks any breakdown or front-loading of key information.

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 has 4 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It only hints at return fields but does not cover parameters, usage context, or behavioral details. The existence of an output schema slightly reduces burden for return values, but the description still fails to provide a complete picture.

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 description provides zero information about the four parameters (raw, start_date, end_date, days_back). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but fails to do so entirely, leaving the agent without semantic clues for parameter usage.

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 indicates the tool retrieves activity data (assessment, steps, calories), which aligns with the name 'get_activity'. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch', and is vague about the exact resource. Among sibling tools, it distinguishes itself by mentioning specific metrics but is still somewhat ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_daily_summary or get_status. There are no prerequisites, limitations, or recommendations for appropriate usage contexts.

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

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

No annotations are provided, but the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond its purpose. It does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, or authentication needs. With an output schema, the return value is somewhat covered, but the description lacks additional behavioral context.

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 concise at three sentences, with the first sentence stating the purpose and the second providing usage guidance. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary information.

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?

While the description provides good usage guidance and purpose, it lacks parameter explanations. Given 4 parameters (0 required) and an output schema, the description is not fully complete without parameter details. The output schema likely covers return values, but the missing parameter descriptions reduce completeness.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain any parameters (raw, end_date, days_back, start_date), relying solely on parameter names which may not be self-explanatory for all users.

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 it provides a daily summary of sleep, readiness, and activity scores. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the starting point for the most frequent request.

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 explicitly advises to start with this tool and then use get_sleep and others for details, providing clear context on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the data updates rarely, which is useful. But it omits other important details such as read-only nature, authorization requirements, or data availability, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 very concise at two short sentences, front-loading the purpose and a usage tip. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, leaving parameter details unaddressed.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still needs to compensate for the completely undocumented parameters. It only covers the return type and a usage hint, not enough for a tool with four unannotated parameters.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (raw, end_date, days_back, start_date). The hint to 'take a wider period' vaguely relates to date parameters but provides no concrete mapping or formatting guidance.

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 specifies the tool returns 'vascular age and VO2max', which clearly indicates the health metrics it provides. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_heartrate, leaving some ambiguity about the full scope of 'heart health'.

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?

It advises using a wider time period due to rare updates, giving partial guidance on how to use the tool. However, it offers no comparison to sibling tools or when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_heartrate or get_spo2.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that raw=True returns thousands of points per day, but does not mention authentication needs, data freshness, or other behavioral traits. Some transparency is present but not comprehensive.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loads the core functionality. However, the second sentence is slightly awkward in structure and could be clearer. Overall, it is concise and to the point.

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 has 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not cover date parameters or the return format, though an output schema exists. The description provides some context but leaves gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'raw' parameter meaning, but does not explain 'start_date', 'end_date', or 'days_back' beyond their names. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds limited value for these parameters.

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 returns minute-by-minute heart rate data and daily aggregates (average, min, max). It distinguishes between aggregated and raw modes, and the verb 'get' combined with resource 'heartrate' is specific. Sibling tools like get_heart_health indicate differentiation.

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 advises using raw=True for full series and cautions to limit date range due to data volume. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like get_heart_health or provide criteria for when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that the operation is read-only, mention authentication requirements, or describe side effects. The output schema is present but not discussed.

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 very short (one sentence in Russian) but under-specified. It lacks structure and does not front-load essential information.

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 has 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain output, date handling, or parameter defaults.

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?

Zero schema description coverage and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (raw, end_date, days_back, start_date). The mention of HRV and temperature does not map to parameter usage.

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 translates to 'Readiness: assessment, HRV balance, temperature deviation.' It clarifies that the tool returns readiness metrics including HRV and temperature, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_sleep or get_activity. However, it lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_daily_summary or get_status. No prerequisites or context for invocation.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires special permissions, or any side effects. It only describes the data content, missing critical behavioral context for an agent to safely invoke the 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?

The description is two sentences long and front-loads the key data fields (stages, efficiency, HRV, etc.). It is concise and avoids redundancy, though the structure could be improved with clearer separation between data content and additional notes (e.g., 'Here also lies night HRV'). Overall, efficient.

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 that an output schema exists (context signal: has output schema: true), the description need not detail return values, but it does list many of them, which adds value. However, the complete absence of parameter semantics and behavioral transparency leaves gaps. The tool is moderately complete for a straightforward data retrieval tool, but missing crucial context for safe and correct usage.

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 4 parameters (raw, end_date, days_back, start_date) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention or explain any parameter, leaving the agent without guidance on how to date parameters impact the query. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 lists the specific data fields (stages, efficiency, HRV, resting heart rate, breathing, body temperature deviation, night HRV, lowest_hr) that the tool returns, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_sleep_score which likely returns only a score. The verb 'get' in the name combined with the detailed list of data makes the purpose highly specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., get_sleep_score, get_daily_summary). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The description only lists the data content without any usage direction.

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

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, required permissions, or output characteristics beyond 'daily sleep score and contributions'.

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?

Very brief (two sentences) but sacrifices essential detail; no structure or front-loading of critical info.

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?

With 4 parameters, no annotations, and schema coverage 0%, the description is severely incomplete. Output schema exists but is not mentioned.

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% and the description provides no explanation for any of the 4 parameters (raw, end_date, days_back, start_date). Agent must infer from names alone.

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 states it returns 'daily sleep score and its contributions' and distinguishes it from sibling 'get_sleep' by being 'easier'. This gives clear purpose and scope, though 'contributions' is vague.

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?

Implies usage via comparison to 'get_sleep' (use when only daily score needed), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the output without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, data freshness, or limitations.

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 short sentence with no fluff, achieving good conciseness for a simple tool.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain parameters or return structure, making it incomplete for proper tool understanding.

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 description does not mention any of the 4 parameters (raw, start_date, end_date, days_back), and schema description coverage is 0%, leaving the agent without semantic guidance.

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 returns blood oxygen saturation during sleep and respiratory disturbance index, which is specific and distinguishes from siblings like get_heartrate. However, no explicit verb is provided.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or use cases.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully cover behavioral traits. It mentions usefulness for debugging but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, or potential rate limits, leaving significant gaps.

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 sentence, concise and direct, but could be slightly expanded to add clarity about the output.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, given the simplicity of the tool, the description is adequate but minimal; it does not explain what 'server operation mode' means or how authorization status is presented.

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?

There are no parameters, so baseline is 4. The schema and description already cover all inputs trivially.

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 states it checks server operation mode and authorization status, distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve health data. However, the term 'режим работы сервера' is somewhat vague, not specifying what aspect of server status is returned.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While siblings are clearly data-retrieval tools, the description does not explicitly advise on when `get_status` is appropriate, such as for troubleshooting.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it returns daily stress data, but does not mention whether it is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output contains. The phrase 'оценка дня' (day assessment) is too vague to convey behavior beyond the tool's name.

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 short sentence, which is concise but overly minimal. It could be restructured to include more key information without becoming verbose. The sentence front-loads the core purpose, but lacks necessary details for an effective tool definition.

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 that there is an output schema, the description does not need to list return fields, but it fails to explain the overall purpose in enough detail. It omits important context such as time range handling, the meaning of 'raw' parameter, and how the stress data relates to other Oura Ring metrics. The description is insufficient for an agent to confidently use this 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?

The input schema has 4 parameters (raw, end_date, days_back, start_date) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no information about any parameter—it does not explain what 'raw' means, how date parameters affect results, or the default behavior of days_back. The agent receives no help on how to set these parameters correctly.

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 'Дневной стресс: время под нагрузкой и в восстановлении, оценка дня.' translates to 'Daily stress: time under load and recovery, day assessment.' It vaguely indicates that the tool retrieves daily stress data, but does not specify what exact metrics (e.g., stress score, stress level) or how it relates to the day. It does not effectively differentiate from siblings like get_readiness or get_heartrate.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over siblings, such as get_daily_summary or get_activity, nor does it explain any prerequisites or context for calling it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits, but it only states what the tool does (get tags), not how it behaves (e.g., pagination, rate limits, data freshness). It does not disclose any behavioral characteristics beyond the basic function.

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 very short (one sentence), but it lacks useful detail. It is concise but under-specified, failing to provide value beyond the tool name. Every sentence should earn its place; this one is too minimal.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain tag semantics, date range usage, or the raw flag. The output schema likely covers return values, but usage context is missing.

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%, and the description adds no information about the four parameters (raw, end_date, days_back, start_date). The agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct configuration.

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 states the tool retrieves tags manually set in the Oura app, which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. However, it does not specify the resource (tags) beyond the name, and it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but siblings are unrelated health metrics, so differentiation is implicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The description does not help the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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