list_wellness

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds useful context about date-range scoping and tracked metrics, but does not disclose potential behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or result limits. This is adequate but not rich beyond the annotation.

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 compact: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence usage guideline, an explicit sibling pointer, and a brief Args list. Every sentence contributes value and there is no redundancy.

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 simple parameter set, the readOnlyHint annotation, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient contextual completeness. It covers scope, use case, alternatives, and parameter defaults in a minimal, effective way.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the structured schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description's Args block simply repeats the schema information (oldest, newest, athlete_id default) without adding new meaning, earning the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('List daily wellness records in a date range') and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_wellness for single-day inspection. This is clear and well-differentiated from siblings.

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 states when to use this tool ('when tracking trends in sleep, HRV, weight, and readiness over time') and explicitly names an alternative for single-day lookup (get_wellness). This is exemplary guidance.

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