Get Wellness Data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the kind of data returned (HRV, sleep, etc.) and the date-range scope, but it omits important behavioral traits such as pagination, timezone handling, response structure, or authentication requirements (only the schema hints at apiKey). This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 a single, tight sentence in Indonesian, front-loaded with the main purpose ('Ambil data wellness harian athlete') followed by a parenthetical list of data types and the date-range qualifier. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job explaining the content and scope. It lists the data categories and date range, which is enough for basic understanding. However, it lacks details on response format, defaults (though the schema provides defaults), or any caveats about data completeness, making it minimally adequate.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (apiKey, endDate, athleteId, startDate) having a meaningful description. The description adds little beyond the schema—it merely mentions 'dalam rentang tanggal tertentu' which aligns with startDate/endDate. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Ambil data wellness harian athlete' (get daily wellness data for athlete) and enumerates specific data types (training metrics, HRV, resting HR, sleep, subjective scores). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_activities or get_activity_details.

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 implies usage for retrieving wellness data over a date range, and it lists typical wellness metrics. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools or provide exclusions (e.g., 'use get_activities for workout logs'). The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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