get_recovery_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts this ('read-only, numbers only, no readiness verdict'). Beyond annotations it adds real behavioral context: today's record is flagged preliminary, today_completeness names fields not yet arrived grouped by expected timing, missing values and record update time are surfaced, and small baseline samples are flagged.

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 purpose and mode constraints are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a dense but informative inventory of returned content. The prose is long and run-on, but with no output schema most of it earns its place by setting return-value expectations; there is little outright padding.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return payload and does so thoroughly: wellness values, load metrics, subjective and custom fields, baselines, activities, planned events, completeness diagnostics, plus a method/guide pointer. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely extends meaning beyond the schema: it explains that days_back extends the window per day, that baseline_metrics drives a baseline block computing 7-day and 42-day mean/median/SD/z-score vs latest value with small-sample flags, and gives a custom-field example (Body Battery). It adds value rather than restating field descriptions.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: return the recovery/readiness context of one day in a single call, with concrete scope (default today, read-only, numbers only, no readiness verdict). It also names the sibling it is not — 'Trends: get_wellness_trends' — so an agent can separate this per-day snapshot from the trend tool without opening either schema.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use ('Use for the recovery and readiness context of one day in one call') and points to the alternative for trend questions. It stops short of an explicit when-not/exclusion list against other overlapping siblings such as get_wellness_data or get_coach_context, so an agent still has to infer the boundary in those cases.

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