get_daily_overview

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: results are informational only, and missing fields surface as 'not recorded' rather than zero. That prevents a real misinterpretation an agent would otherwise make. It doesn't mention timezone semantics or how partial days behave, keeping it short of a 5.

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 metric list is dense but front-loaded and the caveat sentences each earn their place. The leading 'T1.' token is wasted and unexplained, the only real structural blemish.

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 shape needn't be explained, and the description still names the returned metrics plus the sentinel-value caveat. For a single-date read tool this is close to complete; only usage routing against siblings 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter has a format example, so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about the date parameter, which is the correct baseline-3 outcome when the schema is fully documented.

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?

States a specific resource (one day's overview) and enumerates exactly which metrics it aggregates, which implicitly distinguishes it from the single-metric siblings like get_sleep or get_heart_rate. It never names a sibling explicitly, and the opaque 'T1.' prefix adds no meaning.

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 word 'overview' implies this is the aggregate daily fetch rather than a targeted metric call, but the description never states when to prefer it over get_heart_rate/get_sleep or whether it should be the first call in a daily workflow. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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