health_readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description's 'Informational only' reinforces that. It adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations by disclosing that confidence and missing_inputs are returned, that reasoning is shown, and that the result is not a medical assessment.

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 tightly written and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by what is returned and the key safety caveat. Every sentence adds useful information with no repetition or 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?

With an output schema present and read-only annotations, the description covers the main inputs, outputs, and important limitations such as the non-medical disclaimer. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though explicit date formatting and sibling-tool routing would make it fully comprehensive.

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 one optional date parameter with zero description coverage. The description adds that this is a per-day calculation, giving the date parameter meaning, but it does not specify the expected date format or behavior when the date is omitted. It is minimally adequate for a single optional parameter.

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 names the exact outcome, a per-day recovery readiness call combining HRV, resting HR, breathing rate, SpO2, and sleep debt into a train/hold/rest recommendation. This clearly distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like health_daily or health_trend by focusing on readiness scoring.

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 use for a specific day's readiness and explicitly notes it is informational only and not a medical assessment. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over siblings such as health_daily or health_trend, leaving selection partly to inference.

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