get_daily_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only enumerates metric names. It says nothing about read-only semantics, what happens when a metric is unavailable for a date (empty object vs. omitted vs. null), units, or any auth/rate-limit constraints.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good, but the second sentence is a 14-value enum dump that duplicates the schema verbatim and consumes most of the description's length without adding information.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema read tool this is adequate to select and call: the agent knows the date format from the schema and what metric groups exist. It is incomplete on availability/empty-data behavior, which matters when requesting many metrics for an arbitrary date.

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%, so both `date` and `metrics` are documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description re-lists the enum values but adds no meaning the schema lacks — it never explains what distinguishes `summary` from `stats_and_body`, or how selecting multiple metrics composes the response.

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 description names a specific verb+resource: retrieving daily wellness metrics for a given date, and the `metrics` list makes the surface of returned data concrete. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_steps_history, get_activity, or get_weight, which overlap conceptually with the steps/floors/heart_rate metrics offered here.

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?

"Pick one or more via `metrics`" gives clear guidance on how to invoke the tool but no guidance on when to choose it over get_steps_history, get_activity, or get_weight. Usage is implied by the resource rather than stated.

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