get_health_history

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

The description correctly states the tool is read-only and limits date range to 90 days, which are important behaviors. However, it does not disclose potential error cases, data origin, or what happens when the range exceeds 90 days. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and offers moderate 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?

Two sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the primary action and includes key constraints and options with no wasted words.

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?

The description explains the date range limit and optional fields, but lacks prerequisites, error conditions, or format details for dates. Given the output schema likely covers return values, this is adequate but not 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?

Schema coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description adds meaning by specifying 'inclusive date range of up to 90 days' and listing example fields like sleep_minutes, steps. But it omits the date format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD), so compensation is partial.

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 normalized daily metrics for an inclusive date range, with optional field filtering. It also declares read-only. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like get_daily_health_facts or get_daily_health_pulse, which have similar names.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only implies usage for retrieving historical metrics but lacks explicit context for selection.

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