Get SpO2 Data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and data availability. The description adds value by explaining that the output represents pulse oximetry readings as a percentage and gives the normal range, helping the agent interpret results. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then adds a clarifying explanation of SpO2 and normal range. Every word serves a purpose—no filler or redundancy—making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the data is, its unit, and a reference range. Combined with the annotations (readOnly, openWorld), the agent has sufficient context to call and interpret results without further detail.

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 description coverage is 100% since the schema already documents the 'date' parameter's format (YYYY-MM-DD) and default behavior (today). The description only repeats 'for a specific date' without adding additional meaning. With full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate further.

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 retrieves SpO2 (blood oxygen saturation) data for a specific date, with the verb 'Get' and resource 'SpO2 data'. It distinguishes itself from sibling health metric tools like get_heart_rate or get_respiration_data by specifying the pulse oximetry metric and providing normal range context (95-100%), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage (for retrieving SpO2 data on a date) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Given the many similar get_* tools, some guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if needing respiratory rate) would be helpful, but the metric specificity makes the intended use clear enough for a baseline score.

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