get_daily_health

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about authentication, rate limits, data freshness, units, or what a partial or empty response looks like. The only behavioral hint is that multiple metrics can be requested at once, which is already evident from the array schema.

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?

Front-loaded and short, which is good, but the long enumeration of all fourteen metric names duplicates the schema verbatim and consumes most of the description's length without adding information. Structure is fine; content density is low.

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 multi-metric aggregation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return shape, units, or timezone handling. It provides none of that, leaving the agent unable to anticipate what each metric key contains.

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 100%, including the date format/pattern and the metrics enum and defaults, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description merely re-lists the enum members rather than adding meaning such as units, granularity, or how metrics interact. Baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb-resource pairing: returning daily wellness metrics for a given date. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_training, get_weight, and get_activity, which cover different data domains. It stops short of explicitly naming what it is not, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar-looking siblings (get_fitness, get_activity, get_steps_history), nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The only selection advice offered is about picking metric values, which is parameter-level, not tool-level.

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