get_heart_rate

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

Annotations are entirely absent, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only reveals the output components (resting HR, min/max, zones). It does not disclose what happens when no data exists for the requested date, how timezone is handled, or whether the response has any failure modes.

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?

Two sentences with no waste: the first front-loads the purpose and date format, the second states the return contract. Every phrase earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool that has an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it retrieves, the date format, and the main returned fields. Gaps remain in alternative-tool routing (especially vs get_hrv) and missing-data behavior, but the tool's simplicity makes those acceptable gaps.

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% — the schema declares only a bare string property 'date' with no format. The description partially compensates by specifying YYYY-MM-DD, which is the critical missing piece, but it leaves timezone semantics and valid date range unstated.

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-resource pair ('Get heart rate data') with a date scope and enumerates the returned metrics (resting HR, min/max, zones), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_hrv (heart rate variability), leaving a minor potential confusion point.

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 only usage signal is the single-date scope implied by 'for a date (YYYY-MM-DD)'. There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over its 28 siblings — notably get_hrv for heart rate variability or get_daily_summary — and no exclusions or conditional routing are provided.

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