Get Vitals Freshness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals a non-obvious behavioral trait: freshness is not instantaneous and missing days can masquerade as improvements. It does not describe output formatting, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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 sentences total: a definition, a when-to-call instruction, and a concrete stale-data warning. Every sentence earns its place and the key guidance is front-loaded.

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 a 2-parameter schema, an output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies the missing judgment: use it before reading vitals numbers. The required package_name and optional metric_set are documented in the schema, so nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 input schema already covers both parameters: package_name is required and metric_set is optional with a default of null. The description only refers to metric sets generically and adds no format, default, or null-semantics detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Report how current each vitals metric set's data is.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from value-returning siblings like query_vitals by focusing on data freshness rather than the metrics themselves.

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 explicitly says 'Call this before acting on a vitals number' and explains why: Play data lags reality by hours to days and can silently omit recent days. It does not name alternative tools or spell out when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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