get_daily_readiness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a score and contributors, and a deviation in degrees Celsius, which is useful. However, it omits any mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (even though the schema has next_token), or that it is a read-only operation. The description provides some behavioral context but not comprehensive transparency.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose (daily readiness scores) and follows with a concise enumeration of contributors and the deviation measure. It avoids redundancy and fluff, making it efficient and well-structured.

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, reducing the need to detail return structures. The description covers the score range and units, and the schema covers parameter details and pagination through next_token. The main missing context is a note about data availability or the expected multi-day nature implied by date range, but given the output schema and parameter descriptions, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool 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 100%, with each parameter (end_date, next_token, start_date) already documented with defaults and explanations. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as date range behavior or token usage, so it provides no value beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline of 3 applies due to high 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 description clearly states the tool retrieves daily readiness scores (0-100) and lists the contributors and body temperature deviation, making the function and output unambiguous. It is distinct from other daily metrics like cardiovascular age or stress, so a agent can immediately understand what this tool offers.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to the many sibling daily-metric tools (e.g., get_daily_activity, get_daily_stress). It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context without explicit direction.

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