oura_get_daily_summary

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds interpretative context: explains what columns mean (e.g., rising resting_hr signals incomplete recovery, resp_rate_brpm as illness flag). No contradictions, but could mention any rate limits or auth requirements.

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 informative but verbose, with multiple paragraphs including detailed column explanations and interpretive notes. It could be more concise while retaining key guidance.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in detail. The description covers columns, units, defaults, and interpretative guidance. Missing error/exception info, but complete for typical use.

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% with descriptions for start_date and end_date. The description reiterates defaults (last 30 days) but adds no new parameter-level details beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it is a cross-source join table for daily summaries combining readiness, sleep, activity, and recovery signals. It distinguishes itself from sibling detail tools by advising to use detail tools only for drilling into specific signals.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool first for almost any question about training/activity vs recovery, and to join with Strava. It also tells when not to use it (reach for detail tools for specific signals).

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