get_heartrate

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.