Wellness Planner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves aggregated data but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if no data exists for the date. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the 'Args' section efficiently explains the parameter without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and there's no wasted text, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, read operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but misses behavioral details like response format, error cases, or integration with siblings. For a health data tool, more context on data aggregation or limitations would improve completeness.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage and only lists 'target_date' as a string/null with a default. The description clarifies that it's an 'ISO date string (YYYY-MM-DD)' and 'Defaults to today,' providing essential format and default behavior that the schema lacks. With one parameter and low schema coverage, this compensates well.

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's purpose: 'Get an aggregated health summary (sleep, activity, heart rate) for a date.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('health summary'), and scope ('for a date'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate_readiness_score' or 'query_raw_logs'. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the tool fetches aggregated health data but doesn't compare it to siblings like 'calculate_readiness_score' (which might compute a score) or 'query_raw_logs' (which might provide raw data). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection.

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