get_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the return composition (scores with confidence, findings, safety alerts first, key metrics), which is genuinely useful output-shaping context for a tool with no output schema. It stops short of describing edge cases such as missing data or empty days.

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?

A single telegraphic sentence with zero filler, and the highest-value facts (what it returns, default behavior) come first. The fragment style is slightly terse but every clause carries information.

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-param read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what comes back and that today is the default. It omits the date input format and any mention of behavior on empty/missing days, which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single undocumented 'date' parameter. 'Default today' is valuable because it resolves the schema's ambiguous default of null into concrete behavior, but it never states the accepted date format, so the parameter is only partially explained.

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?

Names a concrete resource set: one day's scores with confidence, findings, safety alerts, and key metrics, so an agent can tell this is a daily dashboard/overview rather than a single-domain tool. The verb is only implied by the tool name, and differentiation from siblings like get_evidence or get_trends is left to inference, but the content scope is specific enough to distinguish it.

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 only usage signal is 'Default today,' which concerns the date parameter rather than when to choose this tool. It never states when to prefer it over get_trends, get_evidence, or get_sleep, nor any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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