get_daily_summary

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It provides useful context about the date parameter (accepted formats, default) but discloses nothing about side effects, permissions, or operational behavior. Given this is a read-only tool, the absence of a readOnlyHint is not exposed, but the description at least explains input behavior, which is moderate value.

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 concise blocks: a one-sentence summary of the data returned, and a single-line parameter explanation. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word adds value. No superfluous content or repetition of the tool name.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter) and that an output schema exists, the description covers the essential aspects: what data is returned and how to specify the date. It lacks any usage context or system prerequisites, but these are not critical for a basic read operation. The description is nearly sufficient on its own.

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 schema only defines the parameter with a type and default, giving zero semantic coverage. The description thoroughly explains the date parameter with all accepted formats (YYYY-MM-DD, 'today', 'yesterday', offset) and the default behavior. This compensates completely for the schema's lack of detail.

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 resource ('daily health summary') and explicitly lists the contained metrics: steps, calories, resting heart rate, and body battery. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_sleep_data or get_activities, which focus on single data types. No ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer from the name and content that this is a general summary, but there is no explicit routing or condition stated.

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