get_resting_heart_rate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does reveal that the tool returns a daily trend over a date range, but it is silent about the return structure, units, or any edge-case behavior such as missing days. The read-only nature is only implicit in the verb 'Get'.

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?

Two concise sentences state purpose, followed by a minimal Args list. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant filler.

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 tool with only two optional date parameters, the description covers invocation semantics well. However, with no output schema, it leaves the exact response format implicit ('trend'), and it does not mention what happens when no data exists for the range.

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 docstring defines both parameters with a concrete format (YYYY-MM-DD) and default behavior (start_date defaults to today; end_date defaults to start_date). The input schema only provides types and null defaults, so the description adds critical meaning not available elsewhere.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('daily resting heart rate trend over a date range'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_heart_rate or get_daily_stats, which target different data.

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 the appropriate scenario: requesting resting heart rate data aggregated by day over a specified range. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over siblings such as get_heart_rate or get_hrv, nor does it provide exclusions.

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