steps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the useful default window (last 28 days), but says nothing about return format, units, timezone, or what happens with partial date ranges.

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 terse, front-loaded clauses with no waste. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity comes at the cost of specification rather than being optimally sized for the tool.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description states the resource and default range, which is a reasonable core. But the 0% parameter coverage and absent return details leave gaps an agent would need to guess at.

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 explain both date parameters. It only conveys the default 28-day window and gives no date format, parsing behavior, or what a single-sided range does, leaving the parameters substantially under-specified.

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 names a specific resource ('Schritte und Schrittziel pro Tag' – daily steps and step goal), which is more specific than a bare name restatement. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings like daily_summaries or wellness_activity_summaries that could plausibly also surface step data.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus the many overlapping summary siblings. The only contextual clue ('Standard: letzte 28 Tage') describes default behavior, not usage guidance, and no exclusions are stated.

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