query_heart_rate

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

No annotations exist, and the description gives no behavioral details. It does not indicate read/write behavior, destructive potential, or any constraints like date format or rate limits. The agent gets no insight into side effects or permissions.

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?

While the description is short (one sentence), it is under-specified rather than concise. It front-loads the verb but omits critical context, making it less useful than a slightly longer but more informative description would be.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (2 required, one with enum) and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain return format, filtering behavior, or the meaning of 'samples,' leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not. It fails to mention any of the four parameters (start_date, end_date, sample_type, limit) or their meanings. The agent cannot infer valid values or usage patterns from the description alone.

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 'Query heart rate samples' clearly identifies the verb (query) and resource (heart rate samples). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like query_body_measurements or query_sleep, which have similar names. It is clear but lacks specificity about what 'samples' entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify if this is appropriate for real-time queries or historical analysis compared to other data query tools.

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