get_rhr_day

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 only says 'Get resting heart rate data' and documents the date format. It does not disclose units, timezone handling, response behavior, or whether this is a safe read-only operation, though the 'get' prefix implies read-only intent.

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 short and front-loaded: the main purpose appears in the first sentence, and the parameter documentation is minimal but sufficient. There is no extraneous text or repetition of schema fields beyond what is useful.

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-oriented getter with an output schema present, this description is largely complete: the agent knows what to call and what date format to pass. Minor gaps remain around behavioral context and alternatives, but the low complexity and output schema reduce the need for deeper explanation.

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 input schema only defines 'date' as a string, while the description adds the required YYYY-MM-DD format. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this format detail meaningfully compensates for the schema's lack of semantic guidance.

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 and resource: 'Get resting heart rate data.' This is clear and matches the tool name, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_heart_rates or get_heart_rates_summary, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage context is implied: the tool is used when resting heart rate data for a specific date is needed, and the date argument is required. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related heart-rate tools, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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