get_daily_readiness

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

With no annotations, the disclosure relies on the description. It mentions default dates (yesterday/today) which is helpful, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects. As a read-only tool, minimal disclosure is acceptable, but more context would improve transparency.

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 concise with only two sentences plus the arguments list, front-loading the purpose and then providing parameter details. Every sentence is informative without 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 tool's simplicity (two optional params) and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value (readiness scores and contributors). It does not cover edge cases or interpretation, but is complete for basic usage.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by specifying format (YYYY-MM-DD) and defaults for both parameters. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage clear.

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 returns readiness scores and lists specific contributors (activity balance, body temperature, etc.), which effectively conveys the purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual metrics, though it could explicitly contrast itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_daily_activity or get_daily_sleep. The description relies on the user to infer from context, missing an opportunity to clarify tool selection.

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