get_daily_hrv_summaries

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already establish this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description does add genuinely new context — that the range is inclusive and that it mirrors the official client one-to-one — but it explicitly acknowledges a date restriction while never stating what the limit is, leaving a failure mode 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?

Short, but the same content is restated three times across Chinese and English (multi-day HRV summaries, official-client parity, daily HRV summaries). The official-client sentences are boilerplate that consume front-loaded space without adding decision value.

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?

For a 2-required-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description must carry the full burden of date format, range cap, and return shape. It supplies only "inclusive" and a pointer to unspecified official limits, which is not enough to call it correctly on the first attempt.

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%: both start_date and end_date are bare strings with no format, timezone, or range guidance. The description compensates only partially by saying the range is inclusive; it never says the expected date format (e.g. YYYY-MM-DD) or the maximum span implied by the "official" limits.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Return daily HRV summaries") and adds the scope qualifier "多日" (multi-day) plus an inclusive date range. What it does not do is differentiate from the near-identical sibling get_daily_hrv (singular), which is the most likely confusion an agent will have.

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?

"参数和日期限制沿用官方接口" defers to an external official client rather than telling the agent anything actionable — there is no when-to-use, no exclusion versus get_daily_hrv, and no prerequisite stated. The agent is left to infer tool selection entirely from the names.

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