get_health_range

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the output is one row per day, the default window is the last 7 days, and it is explicitly cheaper than looping over day tools. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but those are not essential here.

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?

Two short sentences, both front-loaded with the key use case and the efficiency rationale. There is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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 and the annotations cover the read-only/open-world safety profile, so the description need not explain return values. It adequately covers the core invocation context, though the default date-range ambiguity and the lack of explicit single-day exclusion leave a small gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a valuable default-range note ('defaults to the last 7 days'), but the schema says start and end each default to today, which creates ambiguity about whether omitting both yields a 7-day window or a single day. That tension keeps it from scoring higher.

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 (per-day table of health metrics) and a specific use case (trend questions), and it distinguishes itself from the day-based sibling tools by offering a cheaper batched alternative. An agent can immediately tell this is the range/trend variant rather than a single-day fetch.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance ('for trend questions') and names the alternative approach it replaces ('calling the day tools in a loop'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as for single-day queries, but the trend framing is strong enough to route most decisions.

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