Daily summaries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context not present in the schema or annotations: the return shape is 'one flat row per day', which tells the agent the output is a per-day table rather than nested records – important given there is no output schema. It does not mention volume/pagination behavior for long ranges.

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 sentences, zero filler. The payload inventory is front-loaded so the agent immediately sees scope, and the second sentence is a single actionable routing rule.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the row shape and metric list, and the schema fully documents parameter behavior. It is nearly complete for a read-only roll-up tool; the only missing piece is any hint about result size for wide date ranges or how metrics absent for a day are represented.

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 100%, with detail, period, start_date and end_date all documented including the 92-day span limit and the period-vs-dates exclusivity. The description adds no meaning beyond that – it never mentions how the detail or period parameters change the result. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does all the work.

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 resource (one row per day of daily wellness summaries) and enumerates the exact metrics returned (steps, distance, floors, calories, HR, stress, Body Battery, SpO2, hydration), so an agent knows precisely what it gets. The verb is implicit rather than stated, and it does not disambiguate against per-metric siblings like get_steps or get_heart_rate, which keeps it from a 5.

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 an explicit routing rule: for trends over more than a few weeks, use summarize_wellness instead. That is clear when-to-use-an-alternative guidance, but it only covers one alternative and does not say when a per-metric sibling (get_steps, get_stress, get_body_battery) would be preferable to this multi-metric roll-up.

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