get_respiration_trend

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It adds domain context (elevated respiration as a warning sign) and a range constraint, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as what happens beyond 30 days, timezone handling, or the exact definition of 'overnight.' The 'Get' verb implies read-only behavior.

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 well organized: purpose, domain context, usage guidance, then args. Each sentence adds value, though the clinical context sentence is helpful but not strictly necessary for invoking the 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?

The output schema covers return values, and the description covers the two required parameters with format and range guidance. It is complete enough for a simple read-only trend tool, but it could be stronger by explicitly distinguishing this from get_respiration_data and get_respiration_summary.

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 documents both parameters with format ('YYYY-MM-DD') and adds a recommended/maximum range, which is meaningful beyond the bare schema that only declares them as strings.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get overnight respiration rate trend over a date range.' It clearly conveys what the tool returns and the 'trend' wording distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_respiration_data and get_respiration_summary, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It provides clear usage context: 'Use this alongside HRV trend for a complete recovery picture' and gives a 'Recommended range: 7-21 days. Maximum: 30 days.' This tells an agent when the tool is appropriate, but it does not state when to prefer get_respiration_data or get_respiration_summary instead.

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