get_daily_summary

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only the output fields, not whether this is a safe read-only operation, how missing or null day values are handled, timezone assumptions, or any failure behavior. For a health-data retrieval tool this missing context is notable.

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?

One compact sentence delivers the core purpose, the date format, and the main output contents with no wasted words. The most important information is placed first and the structure is easily scannable.

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 very simple one-parameter tool, the description names the resource, the parameter format, and key output fields. But with no output schema and no annotations, it should also clarify the optional/null-day behavior and perhaps the units or structure of the returned summary to be fully complete.

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 for the lone optional day parameter. It does add the expected YYYY-MM-DD format, which is genuinely useful. However, it does not explain that day is optional, what happens when it is null, 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 the resource (daily summary), the date scope, and the three data fields included: steps, calories, and heart rate. It is specific enough to distinguish this aggregate tool from the many sibling per-metric tools like get_daily_steps and get_daily_heart_rate, though it lacks an explicit verb like '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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not contrast this with get_daily_summary_history or the individual metric tools, leaving the agent to infer which sibling is appropriate for a given need. The only implicit context is that it is for a single day.

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