fitbit_get_core_temperature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that readings are manually logged, absolute body temperatures, distinct from skin temperature variation, and may appear multiple times per day. It also describes the return structure with datetime and temp_celsius. It does not discuss rate limits or error behavior, but for a read-only data retrieval tool the provided context is substantial.

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?

Well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The distinction from skin temperature is concise but essential. The Args section is clear and compact, and every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers what the data is, when to use it, how parameters work, and what the return values look like. The presence of an output schema is noted, but the description still adds useful return-value context.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining all three parameters: start_date formats and default, end_date format and default, and the live cache-bypass behavior. This goes well beyond the raw schema, giving an agent everything needed to set parameters correctly.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get manually-logged core (body) temperature readings' in degrees Celsius. It clearly differentiates from fitbit_get_skin_temperature by emphasizing absolute manually-logged temperatures versus device-derived skin variation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: for fever/body-temperature questions using manually-logged readings. It also explicitly names the alternative (fitbit_get_skin_temperature) and explains why that tool is not appropriate for this use case, plus notes that multiple readings per day can be expected.

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