Get Blood Pressure

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, which signal a safe read operation and possibly that return values are not exhaustive. The description adds the date-range scoping but does not disclose any other behaviors like rate limits, data availability, or whether readings are aggregated. Given annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds minimal extra value beyond what is already known.

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 with no unnecessary words. It conveys the essential purpose clearly and is well-structured for quick reading.

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 simple nature of the tool (two parameters, no output schema, and annotations confirming read-only), the description is minimally sufficient to understand the tool's function. It lacks details like return format or data granularity, but the annotations and schema cover most basics. For a simple read tool, this is nearly 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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (startDate and endDate) with pattern and format information. The description mentions 'date range' but adds no extra semantic details beyond the schema, such as inclusive/exclusive boundaries or timezone handling. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states 'Get blood pressure readings for a date range.' It clearly identifies the verb (get), resource (blood pressure readings), and scope (date range). It distinguishes from siblings like set_blood_pressure and delete_blood_pressure by indicating it's a read operation, though it doesn't explicitly mention that it differs from other health metrics tools.

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 implies that the tool is used to retrieve blood pressure data within a specified date range, which is clear context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives (e.g., using get_health_metrics for broader metrics). The sibling list includes many similar get_* tools, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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