hrv_summaries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the returned metric set and the default 28-day window, which is useful context. However, it never states the operation is read-only, gives no hints on volume/rate limits, and says nothing about how missing data or sparse nights are handled.

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, zero waste, with the resource and returned metrics front-loaded and the default behavior immediately after. Nothing to trim.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the returned metrics well enough for an agent to know what it gets. The remaining gap is the undocumented date format and boundary behavior for the two free-form string parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it partially does by explaining that the default window is the last 28 days when start_date/end_date are null. It adds no meaning about date format (ISO vs epoch), timezone, or what happens when only one bound is supplied.

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?

States a specific resource and granularity ('HRV pro Nacht') plus the metrics returned (mean, 7-day rolling average, baseline, status), which tells an agent this is an aggregated nightly HRV series. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling hrv_day, which likely returns single-day detail.

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?

'Standard: letzte 28 Tage' implies the no-argument usage but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The alternative hrv_day is never mentioned, so the agent must infer the choice between summary and day-level tools.

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