get_daily_steps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return shape ('Returns step count per day') and date range, but omits details like inclusivity, timezone handling, or error behavior. This is acceptable for a simple read operation but not comprehensive.

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 two compact sentences with the main operation front-loaded. Every phrase adds value: purpose, date format, return granularity, and a use case. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the tool is a straightforward read operation. However, the description lacks sibling differentiation and parameter-boundary semantics, which leaves some ambiguity among related sibling tools like get_daily_summary.

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 for undocumented parameters. It does add the YYYY-MM-DD format and the notion of a date range, but it does not specify whether boundaries are inclusive, whether end_date must be after start_date, or any maximum range.

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 'Get' and a clear resource 'daily step counts', scoped by a date range. It also states the per-day return granularity, which helps differentiate it from activity-centric siblings like get_activities_by_date or get_daily_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?

The description gives clear context by noting the tool is 'useful for trend analysis', indicating a primary use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is clear enough for a simple getter.

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