get_sleep_data

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 states the tool retrieves data (implied read-only) and mentions the return format ('Dictionary containing sleep data'), but lacks critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific sleep metrics are included. This is inadequate for a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by labeled sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core function, and the subsequent lines provide essential parameter and return details without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters well, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth, errors) and detailed return value explanation. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral and output details would improve completeness.

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?

The description explicitly documents both parameters (start_date, end_date) with format details ('ISO format YYYY-MM-DD'), which adds significant value since schema description coverage is 0%. It clarifies the date range requirement, though it doesn't explain constraints like valid date ranges or timezone handling.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('sleep data'), plus scope ('for a specific date range'). It distinguishes from some siblings (e.g., get_today_sleep_data) by mentioning date ranges, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like get_readiness_data or get_resilience_data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like get_today_sleep_data for single-day data or other data types (readiness/resilience), nor does it specify prerequisites or constraints beyond the date range requirement.

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