get_recovery_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description's verb 'Get available' aligns with read-only semantics and adds the sense of availability (i.e., possibly missing data for some metrics on the date). It doesn't contradict annotations, and given the strong annotation coverage, a 4 reflects that the description adds appropriate context about what the response covers (list of metrics).

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose. It avoids redundancy with the title and annotations, contains zero filler, and all words add value.

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 presence of an output schema (which likely specifies the return structure of metrics) and strong annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is not required to detail return values or side effects. However, it leaves a gap regarding date format expectations, which is especially important given the single parameter. Overall, it's minimally complete for a simple retrieval tool but could be improved.

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% and there is only one parameter ('date'). The description does not elaborate on the date format, such as YYYY-MM-DD or whether it refers to a specific day in a local timezone. In the absence of any schema description, the description should compensate by providing parameter details; it fails to do so, leaving the agent to infer the format.

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 retrieves recovery-typed metrics ('sleep, HRV, Body Battery, readiness, and training status') for a specified date, using a specific verb ('Get available'). While it lists multiple metric domains, its resource (recovery status for a date) is distinct from sibling tools which focus on workouts, activities, and connections; however, it could more explicitly differentiate from the exhaustive list tools like list_activities.

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 implies usage is per-date retrieval of recovery metrics but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings (e.g., when to use get_activity_summary instead). The singular date parameter hints at point-in-time queries, but no contrast with list_* tools or alternatives is provided.

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