get_daily_summaries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return content (therapy results fields) and the date-handling behavior (ISO format, omit for all data). However, it does not explain the effect of limit or profile parameters, or whether results are ordered or paginated. The level of detail is moderate but incomplete.

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 packed with essential information. It front-loads the main purpose and adds a concise note on date handling. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, making description completeness crucial. While it covers the output fields and date parameters, it omits the behavior of limit and profile, and lacks any mention of ordering or pagination. For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, this is insufficiently complete.

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 explains the start_date and end_date behavior via the note on ISO format and 'omit them for all data', but it does not explain the limit or profile parameters at all. Half the parameters remain undocumented in both the schema and description, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 a night-by-night table of therapy results with specific metrics (usage hours, AHI, event counts, pressure, leak). It is specific and informative, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like get_daily_detail or get_statistics, so it lacks sibling 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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_daily_detail or get_statistics. It only gives a note about date formats and omitting them for all data, which is parameter usage, not tool selection guidance. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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