get_all_day_stress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond those annotations and the schema's date scope: no mention of data granularity, return shape, units, or whether sparse/no-data days are handled.

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?

A single short sentence with zero padding and the key scope term front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the missing sibling differentiation rather than resolving it.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema to explain, the description is minimally adequate. It falls short of complete because a swarm of similarly named stress/stats siblings exists and this definition gives the agent no basis for choosing among them.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage (including the YYYY-MM-DD UTC format), the schema fully documents the input. The description's 'for one date' merely echoes the parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb/resource pair ('all-day stress levels') with a scope qualifier ('for one date'), which is more precise than a bare name restatement. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_stress_data or get_weekly_stress, leaving the agent to guess which stress endpoint applies.

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?

'For one date' implies the single-day scope, which is a weak usage signal, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., get_weekly_stress for ranges, get_stress_data for other granularity). Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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