get_daily_steps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the lookup window ('period=1, up to end') and expected date format (YYYY-MM-DD), which adds meaningful context. It stops short of addressing edge cases like null end, data availability, or timezone handling.

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 the most important information ('step count') front-loaded. The parenthetical packs the necessary qualifiers without any wasted words.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it states the resource, the period, and the date format. The main gaps are the ambiguity of 'last day' and the absence of a statement about the behavior when 'end' is null.

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 0%, but the description partially compensates by indicating that 'end' is a date in YYYY-MM-DD format and that the result runs 'up to' that date. It does not explain what a null end means or clarify the 'period=1' notion, since no period parameter appears in the input schema.

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 specifies a concrete resource ('step count') and a temporal scope ('last day', period=1), which clearly differentiates it from weekly step tools at a glance. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 description gives no indication of when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_weekly_steps or get_daily_summary. There is no explicit use case, prerequisite, or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer from the name and 'period=1' rather than from concrete guidance.

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