get_blood_pressure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the response includes systolic/diastolic values and units, what happens when no data exists for the requested day, or what the null/default day means. The ambiguity around the optional day parameter is a meaningful gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the resource, the time scope, and the date format in very few words, which is appropriate for a simple daily-data getter.

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?

The tool is simple, with one optional parameter and no output schema, and the description provides the core context an agent needs to make a normal call. However, it is not fully complete because it omits null-day behavior, response shape, and missing-data behavior, and there are no annotations to fill those gaps.

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?

The input schema provides zero description for the 'day' property, so the description must compensate. It adds the useful date format YYYY-MM-DD and clarifies that the parameter refers to a calendar day, which helps, but it does not explain the null default or what range of dates is valid.

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 a blood pressure reading for a specific day and includes the date format, so an agent can tell what resource is being accessed. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools because no other sibling covers blood pressure, though it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'Retrieves'.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you need a blood pressure reading for a specific date. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of alternatives, and no explanation of what happens if the optional day parameter is omitted or null.

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