get_check_ins

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the opt-in default, the meaning of available:false ('not shared, never felt nothing'), the next-morning answering of intentions, and the caveat that a self-rating is the person's own words rather than a measurement.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then filters, then the response summary, then the crucial caveat. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; the summary-field enumeration is slightly list-like but 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description names the returned fields (rated, averageFeeling, intentionsAnswered, intentionsMet), the filter behavior, and the common empty-result semantics. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already carry YYYY-MM-DD descriptions. The description only restates 'optional {start, end} filters', adding no format or boundary semantics beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb+resource (get morning check-ins the user shared) and immediately defines the record shape: per day a 1-5 self-rated feeling, an optional note, an intention and whether it was met. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_health_metrics or get_sleep_sessions.

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?

Explains the key usage context: opt-in and off by default, so available:false is the expected answer and means 'not shared'. It does not explicitly route the agent to an alternative (e.g. get_trends for moods), but the when-to-use condition is clear.

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