get_wellness

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a read operation (implied by 'fetching'), includes constraints (date format requirements, warnings about large date ranges), error handling (raises ValidationError and IntervalsError), and return structure. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers most critical aspects for a read tool.

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-structured with clear sections (Best for, Not recommended, etc.), but it's verbose with redundant elements. The 'Prompt Example' and 'Usage Example' are somewhat repetitive, and the 'Parameters' and 'Returns' sections duplicate information that could be inferred from the schema. It's front-loaded with key info but includes unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, parameter semantics, error handling, and relationships with sibling tools. The output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains return values without over-documenting them. No significant gaps remain for effective tool use.

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 fully documents both parameters: oldest_date (required, YYYY-MM-DD format) and newest_date (optional, same format, with default behavior if not provided). The description adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, including format requirements and behavioral details like 'no upper date limit' for missing newest_date.

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 states the tool fetches wellness data from intervals.icu for a configured athlete, specifying the resource (wellness data) and source (intervals.icu). It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning get_grouped_wellness for trend analysis, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_activities or get_grouped_activities. The purpose is specific but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 provides explicit guidance with 'Best for' and 'Not recommended for' sections, detailing use cases (daily wellness metrics, health trends) and exclusions (real-time monitoring, medical diagnosis). It also names an alternative tool (get_grouped_wellness) for trend analysis, offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use advice.

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