get_sleep_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 real work: it declares read-only safety, discloses that responses include source provenance and missing-data caveats, and scopes the tool as non-clinical. It omits pagination, auth, and behavior for dates with no data, keeping 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 with no filler; every clause (read-only, scope, provenance, caveats, non-clinical) carries information. Slightly dense nominal phrasing ('summary observations') costs it the top mark.

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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output content, and data-quality caveats. The remaining gap is date-range semantics, which the description leaves implicit.

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 coverage is 0% and both required parameters are undocumented. The description confirms a start/end date range but adds no inclusivity rules, timezone handling, or maximum span, so it only marginally compensates for the schema gap (the schema's date format/pattern at least self-documents syntax).

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?

Names a specific resource ('sleep-stage summary observations') and scope ('for a date range'), which separates it from siblings like get_daily_summary, get_workouts, and get_timeseries. It stops short of an explicit verb ('retrieve/list') and never names a sibling, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_daily_summary or get_timeseries, which likely also cover sleep data. The 'no clinical interpretation' clause constrains how to present results, not when to call the tool.

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