get_spo2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal behavioral detail by listing the returned metrics and the date default, but it does not cover what happens for dates with no recorded data, data source assumptions, or any other runtime behavior. Adequate but thin.

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 short sentences with no filler. The resource-plus-scope statement is front-loaded, and the Args line earns its place by supplying format and default information the schema omits. Nothing needs to be cut.

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?

Given a single optional parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential ground: what the tool returns, the parameter format, and the default behavior. The only notable omission is empty/missing-data behavior, which is minor for a simple daily-metric tool.

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 undocumented date parameter, and it does. It adds the concrete YYYY-MM-DD format and clarifies that a null/default date resolves to today, both of which the schema does not state. Only a small amount of extra semantics (e.g., valid date range) is missing.

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 names a specific resource (blood oxygen / SpO2 / pulse ox), a clear scope (a single day), and enumerates exactly what is returned (average, lowest, latest, sleep average, timeline). It is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the large sibling family, none of which covers SpO2.

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?

There is no when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. With overlapping siblings like get_respiration, get_daily_summary, and get_stats_and_body that could plausibly surface SpO2 data, the description leaves the agent to infer selection purely from the metric name.

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