query_metric_series

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

No annotations exist, and the description offers no behavioral details such as read-only status, timezone handling, data granularity defaults, or response format. The tool's side effects and constraints are entirely undisclosed.

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?

At only three words, the description is extremely brief but this is under-specification rather than concise efficiency. It lacks any structured information that would help an agent select and invoke the tool.

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 five parameters (three required) and no annotations or output schema, this description is grossly insufficient. It fails to cover essential context like metric definitions, date range handling, or available aggregations, making the tool nearly impossible to use correctly.

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% and the description provides no additional meaning for the five parameters. It does not explain the metric enum, date formatting, or aggregation and granularity options, leaving them completely ambiguous.

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?

Description 'Query metric series' simply restates the tool name, providing no additional scope or differentiation from sibling tools like query_heart_rate or query_workouts. It lacks specifics about what metrics are covered or how the series is queried.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or recommended invocation patterns, despite a set of sibling query tools.

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