get_body_battery

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 adds real value beyond that: it enumerates what the report contains (charged, drained, events) and warns that include_samples produces a large payload, which is a useful behavioral tradeoff for an agent deciding how to call it.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the one non-obvious parameter tradeoff; nothing is repeated from the schema. Minor waste from the trailing blank line, but the content itself is tight.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return contents adequately and flags payload size. However, missing date-format semantics and any routing guidance relative to the many sibling metric tools leave genuine gaps an agent would hit in practice.

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 load, and it only explains one of three parameters (include_samples plus its size cost). It never states the date string format for start_date/end_date, nor that end_date is optional and defaults to null — meaning single-day versus range behavior is left ambiguous.

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 ('Get daily Body Battery reports') and names the payload contents (charged, drained, events), so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not distinguish itself from metric-adjacent siblings like get_stress or get_daily_summary, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 choose this tool over get_daily_summary, get_stress, or other per-metric siblings, and no stated preconditions or exclusions. The only conditional offered ('set include_samples=true...') is a parameter hint for this tool, not tool-selection guidance.

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