get_daily_health_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists the returned metrics but omits critical details: whether data is per-day aggregated, how missing dates are handled, any authentication requirements, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, well-structured sentence that fronts the key information (metrics and date range). It is free of redundancy. A minor improvement would be adding examples or splitting into bullet points for readability, but overall it is efficient.

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?

The description covers the tool's core functionality and format, but given the presence of an output schema (not shown), return values need not be elaborated. However, it lacks usage context, error behavior, and parameter range, making it only minimally complete for a tool with unannotated parameters.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add the date format requirement ('YYYY-MM-DD') and notes inclusivity, which clarifies the parameters' role. However, it doesn't describe error conditions or bounds, leaving some ambiguity. This meets a baseline but doesn't excel.

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 specifies a clear verb ('get') and resource ('daily health metrics') along with a concrete list of metrics (steps, HR, stress, body battery, SpO2, respiration). This differentiates it from siblings like get_activity_detail (single metric) and get_sleep (specific domain), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_activity_detail or get_training_trends. The description mentions the date range and inclusivity but fails to offer any contextual cues for selection among siblings.

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