get_lifestyle_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully signals that this is a computed 'adherence rollup' rather than raw data, which is meaningful context, but it does not disclose read-only status, permission requirements, or the meaning of 'adherence'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is efficient, though its terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal density.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and there are only two simple parameters. However, with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves the client_id requirement and the notion of adherence undefined.

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, yet it only vaguely references 'a period' without tying it to the week/month/quarter enum or explaining the required client_id. The enum itself already conveys the allowed period values.

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 states a specific resource and scope: a multi-domain adherence rollup over sleep, activity, and nutrition for a given period. This distinguishes it from the single-domain siblings like get_sleep_data and get_nutrition_data, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of get_sleep_data, get_nutrition_data, or get_healthspan_domain_summary. The phrase 'for a period' hints at the temporal scoping but offers no actionable selection guidance or prerequisites.

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