get_wellness_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing default windowing, per-day record structure, the effect of include_all_fields, the special today-partial-record grouping, and day-based pagination with a start_date continuation note. That pagination and partial-day behavior is exactly what an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Purpose and default window are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the middle sentences are dense but each carries distinct information (fields returned, today handling, paging). It is longer than a 4-parameter read tool strictly needs, and the field list reads as an enumeration, but there is 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden and it does: it enumerates the per-day contents, explains what include_all_fields adds, describes the today-not-yet-available grouping, and specifies pagination behavior. Combined with the get_guide method reference, an agent has everything needed to call and consume the result.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: start_date is revealed as the continuation cursor for paged long ranges, and include_all_fields is tied to listing custom wellness fields with names and units. It stops short of adding date-format or athlete_id edge cases, hence not a 5.

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 verb+resource+scope: raw daily wellness records over a date range (default 30 days, read-only). It also explicitly separates itself from the aggregate siblings by assigning baselines and trends to get_recovery_snapshot, get_wellness_trends, and get_nutrition_summary. An agent can distinguish it from every other wellness-related sibling without opening a 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?

Opens with 'Use for...' and then names the concrete alternative tools plus the condition that selects them ('Baselines and trends: get_recovery_snapshot, get_wellness_trends, get_nutrition_summary'). The read-only note and the method guide pointer (intervals://methods/wellness) further anchor when this is the right call.

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