List wellness records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful inventory of what the records contain (fitness model, HRV, sleep, subjective scores), which helps an agent judge relevance. It says nothing about volume, pagination, cost, or how sparse/missing data behaves, so it adds only modest behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then qualifies with the date-range scope and the returned data. Every clause carries information and there is 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating the categories of data returned, letting an agent confirm the tool covers the metrics it needs. What is missing — cardinality of results, whether missing days are returned as nulls, ordering — is minor for a read-only list call with two required date params.

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 100%, so oldest/newest formats (YYYY-MM-DD) and the fields selector (compact 23-field default, ["*"] for all ~47) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that a date range is required and does not add syntax or defaults beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (List) and resource (wellness records) and scopes it to a date range, then enumerates the metric families returned (CTL/ATL, HRV, resting HR, sleep, weight, mood). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the get_wellness sibling, which is the closest alternative, so it falls 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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'for a date range' — an agent can infer this is the multi-day retrieval tool as opposed to the single-record get_wellness. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on choosing between list_wellness and get_wellness, and no mention of prerequisites or limits.

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