get_daily_stress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that the range is inclusive and refers to an official-client-equivalent interface, but it defers the actual date-limit behavior to an external 'official interface' an agent cannot inspect, so the concrete constraint is never disclosed.

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 definition is short and the operative sentence comes last rather than first. Three of four sentences are meta-commentary about matching the official client, which does not help an agent decide or invoke.

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?

A two-required-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotation detail needs the description to state date format and range limits; both are missing or delegated to an unreachable 'official interface'. What remains is enough to know the resource but not enough to call it 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%, so the description must carry the burden for start_date and end_date, yet it never states the expected date format or the maximum range allowed. 'Inclusive' is the only semantic added, and '沿用官方接口' points to documentation the agent does not have.

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 states a specific verb and resource: return daily stress statistics over an inclusive calendar date range. Metric-specific naming makes it distinguishable from siblings like get_daily_steps or get_daily_hrv. The Chinese prefix '每日压力' merely restates the name rather than adding scope.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as get_daily_body_battery or get_daily_hrv, even though these are adjacent stress/wellness signals. '参数和日期限制沿用官方接口' gestures at constraints without saying what they select for.

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