get_daily_stress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the output granularity (per day), the units (seconds), and the summary categories, which goes beyond the tool name. It does not mention pagination or read-only nature, but 'Get' implies a read operation and the schema covers pagination via next_token.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds essential detail about the output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 the output schema exists and the parameter schema is fully documented, the description is largely complete. It could clarify what 'daytime' means or how the summary categories are derived, but the combination of description and schema gives an agent enough 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%, so the schema fully documents start_date, end_date, and next_token. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed because the schema descriptions already explain defaults and pagination behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('daytime stress'), and enumerates the exact metrics returned: seconds in high stress, seconds in high recovery, and a day summary of restored, normal, or stressful. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_daily_summary or get_daily_readiness.

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 makes the tool's context clear: use it when you need daily daytime stress and recovery metrics. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the specificity of the resource makes the intended use obvious among the sibling tools.

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