health_get_core_temperature

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that readings are manually logged, absolute temperatures, and that the tool returns one entry per reading with datetime and temp_celsius. It also explains the 'live' parameter's behavior (re-fetch from API). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects or data freshness beyond the live flag, but for a read-only tool this is adequate.

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 description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a paragraph distinguishing from the sibling tool, and a concise Args section. Every sentence adds value, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 optional params, no required), the description covers purpose, usage, parameter formats, and return structure. The output schema exists, so return values are partially covered, but the description adds the datetime format and temp_celsius field names. It's complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 compensate. It explains start_date and end_date formats (YYYY-MM-DD, YYYY-MM, or '30d' for start; YYYY-MM-DD for end) and defaults, plus the live boolean's meaning. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail edge cases like invalid formats or timezone handling.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves manually-logged core body temperature readings in Celsius, explicitly distinguishing it from device-derived skin temperature via health_get_skin_temperature. It specifies the resource (core temperature readings) and the action (get), making the purpose 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool (for fever/body-temperature questions based on manually logged readings) and when not to (not for device-derived skin temperature), naming the alternative tool. It also notes that multiple readings per day are useful for tracking fever over time, providing clear usage context.

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