get_health_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Busca' implies a non-destructive read, and 'histórico completo' clarifies the scope, but it does not disclose permissions, behavior when no data exists, or explicitly confirm no modifications are made.

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 front-loads the verb and resource, then efficiently lists the included health categories. Every word adds value 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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description adequately explains what will be returned (the full health history with its categories). The only minor omission is handling of missing data or errors, but this is not critical given the simplicity.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% of the parameter information (date, optional, format, default). The description only adds 'para uma data', which does not meaningfully go beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Busca' / searches) and the specific resource ('histórico de saúde completo para uma data'), enumerating the covered categories. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like log_water or update_health_log.

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 intended use is implied by 'para uma data' and the read-only nature of the operation, but no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling names provide context but the description does not.

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