get_respiration_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure itself. It does disclose the response-size behavior (~300 bytes vs ~20KB) and the summary-vs-time-series granularity, which is useful. However, it doesn't state the specific metrics returned, any side effects (though read-only is implied), or other operational behavior such as latency or limits; with no annotations this is only partial coverage.

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 three short lines with the purpose and key tradeoff front-loaded, followed by an Args section. Every sentence contributes; the only minor overlap is 'lightweight version' and 'compact summary,' which does not hurt readability.

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?

With one parameter, an output schema, and a compact summary, the description is nearly complete: it explains the lightweight vs full-data decision and gives the date format. The main gap is not enumerating which 'essential metrics' are included, though that may be covered by the output schema. No side effects or prerequisites are mentioned, but for a read-only summary this is acceptable.

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 coverage for parameters is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by documenting the only parameter, `date`, with the required `YYYY-MM-DD` format, which is the essential missing semantic. For a single required date parameter this is sufficient.

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 and resource: 'Get respiration summary' with 'essential metrics.' The last sentence explicitly contrasts with 'full time-series data,' distinguishing it from sibling get_respiration_data. No ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 description frames the tool as the 'lightweight version' and says it returns a compact summary instead of a ~20KB time series, giving a clear size-based tradeoff. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool or specify when not to use it, so the guidance is contextual rather than a full exclusion.

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