get_daily

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only partially meets it. It usefully discloses the date format (ISO) and sort order (newest first), but says nothing about authorization, rate limits, how 'limit' interacts with the date range, or what an empty date_from/date_to means.

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?

Two terse fragments, front-loaded with the returned metric set and followed by the format/ordering note. No filler, no restatement 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with zero annotation coverage, zero schema description coverage, and no sibling differentiation, an agent still lacks enough to decide between this and the granular sleep/heart-rate tools or to reason about the default empty date bounds.

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 for all three parameters. It only clarifies date format and ordering, which partially covers date_from/date_to, and leaves 'limit' (default 30) and the empty-string date defaults entirely unexplained, including whether no limit is applied or capped.

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 names a specific resource (daily metrics) and enumerates the exact fields returned (recovery, RHR, sleep, strain, TRIMP, CTL/ATL/TSB, SpO2, steps), which is far more specific than the bare name. However, it does not clarify how this aggregated view relates to siblings like get_sleep or get_heart_rate, which appear to return overlapping data at finer granularity.

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 metric list implicitly signals the aggregated daily scope, which hints at when this is preferable to the granular get_sleep/get_heart_rate siblings. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and nothing states that an empty date range is acceptable or what the defaults do.

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