get_daily_summaries

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. The description does add return-shape context ('response preserves the endpoint's object containing a data array, even for one day'), which is genuinely useful with no output schema. However, the line about date limits deferring to the official interface states that constraints exist without stating them, leaving the agent unable to predict behavior at range boundaries.

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 operative content is front-loaded and compact, with the date-range semantics stated before the return-shape note. The bilingual preamble ('与官方客户端...一一对应', '参数和日期限制沿用官方接口') duplicates the English body and is largely meta-information that does not earn its space.

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, 0% parameter coverage, and only read-safety annotations, the description should carry more weight. It covers return shape conceptually and single-day usage, but leaves date format, timezone, which metrics are included, and any range limits unspecified.

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%, so the description must carry the burden. It compensates partially by clarifying that the range is inclusive and that a single day uses identical start and end dates, which is real semantic value. It omits the date string format, timezone, and maximum range, so the schema's two undocumented params remain partly opaque.

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 and resource ('Return user daily summaries for an inclusive calendar date range'), which is clear on its face. But among siblings that are all per-metric daily tools (get_daily_steps, get_daily_sleep_summaries, get_daily_hrv_summaries), 'daily summaries' is ambiguous — it never says whether this is an aggregate across metrics or a specific one, so the agent cannot reliably distinguish it from siblings.

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 only guidance is parameter-oriented ('Use the same start and end date for a single day'), with no statement of when to choose this over the many per-metric daily siblings or over search_activities. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are named.

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