get_daily_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, discloses that output includes source provenance and missing-data caveats, and warns that metrics are split into sum-safe sample_totals versus type-aware sample_statistics for non-summable metrics. It omits auth requirements, pagination, and behavior on oversized ranges, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the read-only scope and packs return-shape details into a clause list with no filler. The jargon ('sum-safe sample_totals', 'type-aware sample_statistics') is dense but each clause carries information.

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 low-complexity two-date tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned and its caveats, which is the important part. It stops short of telling the agent how to choose this tool or how large a range is practical, so it is adequate but not complete.

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?

Two required date parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema gives only format/pattern. The description's 'for a date range' implies the start/end pairing but adds no boundary semantics (inclusive vs exclusive, timezone, max span), leaving the schema to carry the parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read-only daily observation summaries') with a scoping constraint ('for a date range'), which is clearly distinct from get_sleep_summary, get_timeseries, and get_workouts. It never names a sibling or draws an explicit contrast, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus get_timeseries, get_sleep_summary, or list_synced_metrics, nor does it state prerequisites. 'no clinical interpretation' is a scope caveat, not usage guidance, so the agent must infer selection from the resource name alone.

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