get_daily_sleep

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose pagination behavior (despite the next_token parameter) or authentication requirements. It also doesn't mention any rate limits or data freshness. While the safety profile is obvious (read-only), additional behavioral context would be valuable for an agent.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence defines the tool's output and scope, and the second provides a clear routing to the sibling. It is perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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?

For a simple getter with 3 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and routing. It could mention that results may be paginated (implied by next_token) and that the data is read-only (implied by 'get'), but these are minor gaps. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly in most cases.

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, start_date, next_token) already documented with defaults and formats. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, which is acceptable since the schema is comprehensive. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the load.

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 gets daily sleep scores (0-100) and lists all contributors (deep sleep, efficiency, latency, REM sleep, restfulness, timing, total sleep). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool get_sleep_periods by naming it and specifying what that tool covers. This makes 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?

It explicitly states when to use an alternative: 'For durations, stages, heart rate and HRV use get_sleep_periods.' This is a clear when-not condition and names the specific sibling tool, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to choose for different needs.

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