get_daily_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: results are cached, sleep is assigned to the waking day, missing days are excluded, and timezone has an effective default. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 and front-loaded: core definition first, followed by inclusions, usage guidance, and timezone semantics. Each sentence adds distinct value with no filler 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?

With an output schema and read-only annotations covering return values and safety, the description supplies the remaining context: caching, sleep-day assignment, missing-day handling, timezone, and sync prerequisite. Minor gaps like the precise meaning of 'sample coverage' and the exact freshness rule prevent a 5.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameters. It compensates well: date is described as YYYY-MM-DD, timezone is described as an IANA name with default Asia/Shanghai, and compare_days is conveyed through 'optional preceding-day comparisons (missing days excluded).' An agent can correctly populate all parameters from the description.

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 identifies the tool as a cached natural-day summary, specifies the date format, and highlights the sleep-assignment nuance, which makes its purpose understandable and distinct from sibling health/status tools. It lacks an explicit verb in the description, relying partly on the tool name, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'For a morning digest, query yesterday's activity and today's waking sleep separately' and 'Call sync_health first if needed.' It also explains optional preceding-day comparisons and missing-day exclusion. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, so it is not a 5.

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