get_daily_heart_rate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the returned fields (max, min, resting) but does not mention what happens when the optional 'day' parameter is null, whether the data is read-only, or how missing data is handled.

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 or redundancy. It front-loads the most important details: date format and the returned metrics.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool, and the description covers the resource and expected output fields. However, it leaves the default null behavior ambiguous and does not guide selection among the many heart-rate siblings, so an agent may not fully understand invocation edge cases.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds the important YYYY-MM-DD format for the 'day' parameter. However, it does not explain the meaning of the default null value or what day is used when the parameter is omitted.

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 the resource (daily heart rate) and the returned metrics (max, min, resting), and includes the expected date format. It relies on the tool name for the verb 'get' but still distinguishes this from siblings like get_resting_heart_rate by listing all three values.

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 guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_resting_heart_rate or get_hrv. The description only restates the tool's purpose and offers no exclusions or conditions.

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