get_respiration_trend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a read-only trend query and adds date-range constraints, but it does not describe data availability, timezone handling, or what happens when no respiration data exists. These are not severe gaps for a simple getter, but richer behavioral context would improve it.

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 well-structured: the primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a concise context sentence and parameter details. Every sentence carries useful information, though the clinical explanation could be trimmed without losing core value.

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?

Given that this is a two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential details: what it returns, why it is useful, date-range recommendations, and parameter formats. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though explicit guidance on choosing it over get_respiration_data or get_respiration_summary would make it 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 by documenting both parameters with their YYYY-MM-DD format and providing the recommended/maximum range context, adding meaning beyond the bare schema types. It stops short of explaining inclusivity or ordering constraints, but it is largely 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get overnight respiration rate trend over a date range.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_respiration_data and get_respiration_summary by emphasizing 'trend' rather than raw data or a summary.

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?

It provides clear usage context by explaining that elevated resting respiration rate may indicate overreaching, illness, or poor recovery, and recommends using this alongside HRV trend. It also gives a recommended range of 7-21 days and a maximum of 30 days, though it does not explicitly list alternative tools or when not to use it.

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