get_sleep_reports

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: account scoping, the authoritative nature of nullable metrics and returned dates, and the caveat not to infer a bed side.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then parameter formats, then default date behavior, then an important data caveat. Every sentence provides actionable information with no filler.

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?

For a low-complexity read tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers parameter semantics and key behavioral caveats well. It could say more about what the reports contain or what account scope requires, but it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden. It specifies the start_date format (YYYY-MM-DD), days_back range (0–6), time_zone format (IANA zone), and the default behavior when the date is omitted.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: reading account-scoped provider reports. It does not explicitly say these are sleep reports or distinguish itself from sibling device/routine tools, but the tool name and report scope make the purpose reasonably clear.

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 explains the default date behavior when start_date is omitted, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools or any alternative reporting tools. Usage is only implied from the read operation and account scope.

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