get_health_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It lists the return values and mentions AI-generated insights, which adds some transparency. However, it does not explain how the parameters (date, time filters) affect the summary, nor does it mention any access requirements, data freshness, or limitations. A score of 3 is appropriate because it gives a general sense but lacks finer behavioral details.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core function 'Get a comprehensive health overview.' Every phrase adds value—listing key outputs and positioning it as the best quick-overview tool. There is no unnecessary fluff or repetition.

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's moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description does well by enumerating the return elements and indicating breadth. It also hints at use cases relative to siblings. It does not describe parameter interactions, but the schema handles those details. The description is complete enough for most users, so a 4 is warranted.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the description does not need to add much. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as how filters combine or affect the summary. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not exceed that baseline.

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 clearly states the tool provides a 'comprehensive health overview' with a specific list of outputs (sleep score, recovery score, activity score, vital signs, AI insights). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recovery_score or get_activity_data, which are specialized. The phrase 'best tool for getting a quick understanding of overall health status' reinforces its primary purpose.

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 implies usage context: use this tool for a broad health summary rather than a specific metric. It states it is 'the best tool' for an overall status, which serves as a recommendation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use sibling tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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