get_body_battery_stress_history

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool returns combined Body Battery and stress history over a date range, which is meaningful. However, it does not mention default behavior when end is null, timezone handling, or the read-only nature explicitly, though the tool name and 'history' strongly imply a safe read.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the resource and action, and the parenthetical 'up to end' directly connects to the end parameter. Slightly terse, but appropriately sized for this tool.

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 an output schema present and only two optional parameters, the description covers the core operation and gives some meaning to both parameters. It is incomplete in terms of sibling differentiation and default behavior, but for a simple history-read tool it is adequate.

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. It does partially: 'last N days' maps to days, and 'up to end' maps to end, giving the parameters semantic meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the expected string format for end, whether end is inclusive, or what null means in practice.

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 states the resource (Body Battery + stress), the action (history retrieval), and the time scope (last N days up to end). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_daily_stress by the 'history' framing, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_body_battery_stress.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_body_battery_stress, get_daily_stress, or get_weekly_stress. The phrase 'for the last N days' implies historical usage, but no direct routing or exclusion guidance is provided.

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