get_daily_steps

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. It implies a read operation via 'Get' and documents date formats, but it does not disclose aggregation behavior, boundary inclusivity, or any other behavioral traits.

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 compact and front-loaded: one clear summary sentence followed by a short args block. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 is simple and has an output schema, and both required parameters are documented with formats, so it is usable for direct invocation. However, the description lacks any indication of how daily steps differs from sibling tools, and it omits behavioral details that would make selection and invocation fully robust.

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 does add the YYYY-MM-DD format for both parameters, which is useful, but it provides little meaning beyond the parameter names and does not clarify inclusivity or timezone handling.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('steps data'), and scope ('date range'), so the core purpose is clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool get_steps_data, which could plausibly have the same behavior.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_steps_data or get_weekly_steps. No conditions, exclusions, or sibling comparisons are provided.

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