get_daily_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that all recorded recovery values for one day are returned, that the default is the latest day with data, and that trends are out of scope. It does not mention what happens when no data exists for the requested day, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 short sentences front-load the core behavior and then provide the usage rule. Every word contributes meaning and there is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, default behavior, and scope. The main gap is that it does not explicitly mention sibling tools like get_recovery_summary or get_trend, though 'not for trends' handles the most important distinction.

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 schema already documents the 'day' parameter fully, including ISO format and the omit-for-latest behavior. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that the default is the latest day with data, not merely the latest calendar day, and by framing the selection as a single night/day. This goes beyond the schema's own parameter description.

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 that the tool returns every recorded recovery value for exactly one day, defaulting to the latest day with data. It also distinguishes itself from trend tools with 'not for trends.' It lacks an explicit verb in the description, but the tool name 'get' supplies the action, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to use it when a single night/day is in question and not for trends, providing a clear when/when-not rule. However, it does not name specific sibling alternatives such as get_trend or get_recovery_summary, so it stops short of fully explicit alternative guidance.

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