get_stress_data

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 no behavioral context beyond identity (no data shape, no caveats, no auth/rate-limit notes), and 'identical URL' is an implementation detail of little agent value. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded with no filler sentences. The 'identical URL' clause is somewhat superfluous implementation detail, keeping it from a 5.

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 one-parameter, read-only, alias tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the minimal description is nearly sufficient. Still, it never says what stress data is returned or that it mirrors get_all_day_stress's output, leaving the agent to infer the payload.

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 100% and the single cdate parameter is fully documented in the schema as an ISO date in UTC. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 never states a verb or resource in its own right; it defines the tool only by reference to a sibling ('identical URL to getAllDayStress'). Combined with the name get_stress_data an agent can infer it retrieves stress data, but the purpose is established indirectly rather than stated.

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?

Calling it 'an alias' implies the tool is interchangeable with get_all_day_stress, which is useful routing information and implicitly answers 'which of these do I call'. It stops short of any explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or conditions under which one should be preferred.

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