get_stress

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 elsewhere; the description adds no behavioral context of its own. It says nothing about what a "stress level" value looks like (units, scale, aggregation), timezone handling, or how missing days are represented — the only real hint, "daily," is already implied by the name.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no redundancy against the schema. It is efficient, but the terseness borders on under-specification rather than maximizing the value of the space available.

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 tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves critical gaps: no date format, no clarification that only start_date is required, and no explanation of what a stress level is or over what window it is aggregated. An agent could invoke it, but likely with malformed dates or a wrong expectation of the response.

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 carries the burden, yet it only says "date range" without stating the accepted date format, whether end_date is optional (the schema defaults it to null), or what happens if end_date is omitted. The one required parameter, start_date, is never mentioned at all.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get daily stress levels") plus the scoping modifier ("for a date range"), which is enough to distinguish it from most siblings like get_steps or get_hrv. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with adjacent wellness tools such as get_body_battery or get_hrv_range, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many sibling tools. An agent must infer on its own why it would pick get_stress over get_body_battery or get_hrv, and whether the tool is appropriate for retrospective vs recent queries.

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