health_get_skin_temperature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses that values are device-derived RELATIVE deviations, can be negative, that a ~3-night baseline lag suppresses early values, and that live=true re-fetches from the API before reading the cache. These are non-obvious traits an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the core distinction (relative vs absolute) before the Args block, and every sentence adds information: unit, scope, sibling reference, baseline lag, and return shape. No 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?

Though an output schema exists, the description summarizes the return fields (nightly_relative, absolutes, stddev, log_type, data_source) with useful interpretation, and covers the required date-parsing and freshness semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, yet the description documents all three parameters, specifying accepted date formats ('YYYY-MM-DD', 'YYYY-MM', '30d') and the non-schema default of 'last 30 days' for start_date, plus today for end_date and the live caching behavior. It fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 nightly skin temperature variation') plus the exact unit (degrees Celsius from personal baseline), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling health_get_core_temperature. An agent can identify this tool's distinct output without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not rule ('for fever / body-temperature readings use health_get_core_temperature instead') naming the alternative, plus a prerequisite ('a baseline takes about three nights to establish') and intended use cases (illness/cycle/recovery signal). Routing is unambiguous.

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