get_sleep_data

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 usefully discloses default windows (start defaults to 7 days ago, end defaults to today) and that bounds are inclusive, which is genuine behavioral context. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or behavior on missing data, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 definition is short and front-loads the metric scope before the Args block, with no filler sentences. The metric enumeration partly duplicates the output schema, but it is compact enough not to be wasteful.

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 the returned metrics need not be explained, and the parameter defaults are covered. But for a tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the description omits behavioral essentials such as error/auth behavior and what happens when the range exceeds available data.

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 and largely does: it documents all three parameters, gives the ISO date format and inclusivity for both date bounds, and states their defaults. The only weak spot is client_id, described merely as 'Client identifier' with no format or sourcing detail.

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 names the specific resource domain (sleep stages, duration, efficiency, HRV, sleep score), which makes it clearly distinguishable from the domain-partitioned siblings like get_cognitive_data or get_nutrition_data. However, it lists returned metrics rather than stating the retrieval action explicitly, so the verb is only implied by the tool name.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling data tools. Usage for sleep analysis is only inferable from the metric list, not stated.

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