get_daily_resilience

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It explains the output semantics (level and component values) but does not mention that data is returned for a date range, uses pagination (next_token), or that it is read-only. The schema covers defaults and pagination, but the description could be more explicit about the scope and any side effects. Overall, it provides some behavioral insight but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action ('Get daily resilience') and immediately provides the core semantics (definition, levels, components). Every phrase adds value, with 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 that an output schema exists (which would detail the return structure) and parameter descriptions are fully documented in the schema, the description covers the essential purpose and output semantics. There is nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly that is missing—pagination and date defaults are in the schema, and the description clarifies what 'resilience' means in this 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (start_date, end_date, next_token) already described in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('daily resilience'), and defines what resilience means in this context ('ability to withstand and recover from physiological stress'). It enumerates the output levels (limited, adequate, solid, strong, exceptional) and components (sleep recovery, daytime recovery, stress contributors), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_daily_stress or get_daily_sleep.

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 implies usage when a user needs resilience data, and the definition of resilience makes it clear this differs from other daily metrics. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this or point to alternatives; the context is clear but no exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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