get_recovery_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that it is a multi-metric summary for informational context, but says nothing about deduplication handling or source-conflict resolution behavior beyond what the schema fields describe. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no wasted words, and the resource list is front-loaded after the verb. Efficient, though the trailing 'for informational recovery context' is slightly vague rather than informative.

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 no output schema, 5 params, and 60% coverage, the description should clarify return shape or default behavior. Annotations cover safety and the metric list covers scope, but the agent still lacks guidance on what the summary contains or how defaults apply. Marginally adequate.

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 60%, with source, deduplicate, and source_priority documented in-schema. The description names the metrics but adds no meaning about days, timezone, or prioritization behavior beyond the schema, so it neither compensates for the gaps nor adds value. Baseline 3 fits.

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 uses a specific verb ('Summarize') and enumerates the exact resources covered (sleep, heart rate, HRV, oxygen saturation, respiratory rate), so the agent knows precisely what data is aggregated. It doesn't distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like get_sleep_summary or get_health_snapshot, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'For informational recovery context' hints at purpose but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance. Several siblings (get_sleep_summary, get_daily_summary, get_health_snapshot) overlap heavily and the description never names an alternative or a selecting condition.

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