query_daily_activity

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

Annotations cover safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world), but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: zero values may mask missing data with quality warnings, empty lists mean no cached matches not zero measurements, pagination semantics, date precedence rule, no cloud request or sync, requires configured local cache, and warning not to sync between pages. Rich and specific.

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?

Information-dense but somewhat sprawling: mixes routing rules, field lists, parameter rules, behavioral warnings, error semantics, and pagination advice across many semicolon-linked clauses. Front-loads the key distinction well, but could be tighter.

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?

Complete for a read-only paginated query with no output schema: return structure is described (data.summaries, data.data_quality, pagination shape), empty-result semantics are explained, sourcing (local cache vs cloud) is stated, and sibling alternatives are named. An agent has everything needed to call correctly.

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%, so parameters (date, start_date, end_date, limit, offset) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description's parameter guidance (date precedence, inclusive range, pagination next_offset behavior) is useful but substantially overlaps with schema descriptions, warranting baseline 3.

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?

Explicitly states it returns a multi-column daily activity table with named metrics (steps, distance_m, active_kcal, total_kcal, floors, active_minutes, data_quality). Directly distinguishes itself from query_metric_series ('not a single-metric trend') and notes sleep/workouts have separate 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?

Multiple explicit routing rules: choose this for daily activity table not single-metric trend, use query_metric_series for one metric across days/weeks/months, sleep and workouts have their own tools, use get_data_coverage to inspect availability, use sync_data to refresh. Covers when to use and when not to.

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