get_heart_rates_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: output size (~500 bytes vs ~25KB) and summary-level granularity. However, it leaves 'essential metrics' undefined and does not mention error handling, permissions, or data limitations.

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 brief, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the size trade-off, ideal use case, and a single parameter line. There is no filler; the slight conceptual overlap between 'lightweight version' and 'compact summary' is acceptable.

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 tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete: it states what is returned, the approximate response size, the intended use case, and the date format. It only lacks an explicit pointer to the full-data sibling get_heart_rates for cases where detailed time-series data is required.

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 add semantics, and it does by specifying the exact date format 'YYYY-MM-DD' in an Args block. This is the critical detail missing from the schema, though an example or explanation of expected date scope would add a bit more.

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 ('Get'), resource ('heart rate summary'), and distinctive scope ('lightweight version', 'compact summary instead of full time-series data'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling get_heart_rates without needing to open schemas.

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?

Explicitly explains that it returns a compact summary rather than full time-series data and recommends it for daily health checkups and LLM integrations. It does not name the sibling get_heart_rates as the alternative, but the contrast with full time-series data is strong enough to guide selection.

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