get_respiration_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that the response is a compact summary (~300 bytes) rather than full time-series data (~20KB), but it does not describe exact included metrics, possible date restrictions, or any other behavioral nuances beyond the size contrast.

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: it states the purpose, immediately gives the key behavioral distinction (summary vs full data), then documents the single parameter. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 one-parameter read operation with a provided output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the tool's purpose, the compact nature of the response, and the required date format. It falls short only by not explicitly naming sibling tools for differentiation.

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?

The schema provides only the parameter name 'date' with type string and no description, so the description's explicit 'Date in YYYY-MM-DD format' adds the necessary semantic detail. For a single-parameter tool, this fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a respiration summary and frames it as the lightweight version that returns compact data rather than full time-series. It distinguishes the tool from the full-data sibling implicitly, though it does not name get_respiration_data or get_respiration_trend explicitly.

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 phrase 'instead of full time-series data' gives an implied usage context: use this when a compact summary is sufficient and full data is not needed. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when to prefer a different respiration endpoint such as get_respiration_trend.

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