get_body_battery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It offers date defaults but does not mention output format, granularity, timezone behavior, rate limits, or whether the data is read-only. 'Get' implies a read operation, but little else is disclosed.

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 main sentence is front-loaded and clear, followed by a compact parameter list. The content is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool, though the 'Args:' block is somewhat mechanical.

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 low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description covers the invocation parameters reasonably well. However, it does not describe the shape or nature of the returned data, which an agent may need when deciding whether the tool satisfies the user's request.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: YYYY-MM-DD format, default start_date as today, and default end_date as start_date. This goes beyond the bare schema, which only provides nullable defaults.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Body Battery (energy reserve) data') over a date range, which clearly distinguishes it from the surrounding health-metric siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with a closely related tool, but the resource naming is sufficiently unique.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there exclusions or prerequisites. The context of sibling metric tools implies usage, but the description itself provides no explicit decision support.

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