baselines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the analytical model (rolling 90-day window, mean ±3 standard deviations) and that it is a read/query operation, but it says nothing about permissions, cost, handling of sparse data, or whether results are precomputed vs. computed on demand.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core definition front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical '(mean +/- 3 standard deviations)' earns its place by defining the reference range; the second sentence is slightly long but carries the routing guidance.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does well to explain what the result conceptually contains (baseline plus reference range), but omits return shape details (sample counts, SD, per-metric structure) and the operational facts an agent needs for a 3-required-parameter query tool.

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 all three undocumented parameters. It clarifies that 'field' is a health field and that the date pair defines a window, but gives no field naming convention (despite the list_available_fields sibling), no date format, and no constraints such as whether the range is capped by the 90-day baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (Query) plus a precisely defined resource: the rolling 90-day baseline and mean ±3 SD reference range for one health field. It also names the sibling it contrasts with (query_health) and the scoping constraint (one field, one date range), so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance (to see what 'normal' looks like recently, or paired with query_health to compare against the person's own history rather than a fixed threshold) and names the alternative tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it or when other siblings like anomalies or correlate are the better fit.

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