get_sleep_and_recovery

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add some real context: data comes from an external 'Big Data service' (implying network latency/caching behavior) and a compute pass via 'InsightEngine' is run. It stops short of anything about permissions, rate limits, or whether results are cached/regenerated, which are relevant for a remote compute call.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that spends its words on the actual data returned and the derived score rather than filler. Slightly jargon-heavy ('Big Data service', 'InsightEngine') but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers the data scope and derived metric. However, for an unannotated read/compute tool the description omits the optional address parameter, usage conditions, and any access or cost characteristics, leaving real gaps.

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?

The single 'address' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so its purpose (target ring or endpoint selector) is entirely undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare property name.

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 (Pulls / runs) and precise resources (multi-night sleep hypnograms with Light/Deep/REM/Awake stages, and a 0-100 Recovery/Readiness Score). The scope is clearly distinct from siblings like get_daily_activity or read_realtime_vitals, but no sibling is named so the differentiation is left implicit.

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 alternatives named (e.g. it never says to prefer this over read_realtime_vitals for overnight data). The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and resource scope.

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