get_daily_steps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description only gestures at 'date limits' inherited from the official interface without disclosing what they are, and says nothing about result size, pagination, or typical latency for an open-world fetch.

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 total length is short, but the same idea is stated twice in two languages, and the middle clauses about 1:1 correspondence with the official client are meta-commentary that doesn't help an agent decide or call correctly. The actionable sentence is buried last.

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 no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and only read-only annotations, the description must carry format and constraint information and does not. An agent still doesn't know the accepted date string format, range caps, or what the step statistics contain.

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 both start_date/end_date are bare strings, so the description does some work by clarifying the range is 'inclusive' and calendar-date based. It still omits the required string format (e.g. YYYY-MM-DD) and any max span, leaving the main ambiguity unresolved.

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 English sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Return daily step statistics') scoped to a date range, which clearly separates it from siblings like get_daily_stress or get_daily_sleep. The Chinese preamble ('每日步数') and the pointer to the official client's get_daily_steps reinforce the identity but don't add distinguishing detail.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over get_daily_summaries or other step-adjacent siblings, and no exclusions. The phrase '参数和日期限制沿用官方接口' hints that constraints exist but defers them to an external document rather than stating them, which is unusable guidance on its own.

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