Daily insulin totals (Glooko per-day figures)

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (Glooko verbatim), the provisional flag on the current day before finalisation, and the wall-clock date semantics. It does not explicitly address read-only/no side-effect status or potential auth/rate-limit constraints, but its behavioral claims are clear and consistent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then important caveats, then a necessary return-shape listing because there is no output schema. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 two clearly documented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies all essential context: return fields, date interpretation, provisional-day caveat, and sibling-tool routing. Nothing an agent needs to correctly call this tool 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 100%, so the schema already documents start and end meaningfully, including wall-clock caveats. The description reinforces the wall-clock convention but adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 first sentence states exactly what the tool returns — Glooko's verbatim per-day totals with basal units, bolus units, combined total, and a window aggregate — using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from get_diabetes_summary and get_trend by positioning this as the device-reported daily method versus the event-aggregated method.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context ('Use this when you specifically want the device-reported daily totals') and explicit alternatives with the condition for choosing them ('For bolus aggregated from individual events... use get_diabetes_summary or get_trend'). This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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