get_menstrual_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that data depends on the feature being used and that the date defaults to today, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not describe what happens when the feature is not used or whether no result is returned, leaving some ambiguity.

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, opening with the purpose before giving the parameter details. Every sentence adds useful information, with no filler or redundancy. The Args block is compact and directly relevant.

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 getter with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: what data is returned, the date format, and the default. Still, it omits any guidance about when this tool is appropriate versus the many sibling tools, and it could clarify the behavior when the menstrual cycle feature is disabled. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the usage context gap remains.

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 the parameter's meaning. It does so by specifying that 'date' is a calendar date in YYYY-MM-DD format and defaults to today, which adds meaningful information beyond the raw schema's string/null type. This is sufficient for the single optional parameter.

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 clearly identifies the resource as menstrual cycle tracking data for a date, which is a specific and recognizable scope. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns,' but the tool name and description together make the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling getter tools, though the resource is unique enough to be identifiable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools, such as get_daily_summary or get_lifestyle_log. The only contextual phrase, 'if the feature is used,' is more about data availability than about choosing this tool over alternatives. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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