get_daily_stress_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does imply a read-only, idempotent lookup by saying 'Get ... by its unique ID'. However, it says nothing about failure behavior when the ID is unknown or what fields the returned document contains.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Nothing is redundant, though it is arguably too terse to be maximally informative.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential mechanics but omits what a 'daily stress document' represents and how a missing ID is handled. Adequate but with identifiable gaps.

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%: the single document_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'The unique document ID'. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single daily stress document') scoped by unique ID, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_daily_stress, though the '_by_id' convention makes the distinction inferable.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the list-style sibling get_daily_stress, nor any prerequisite such as needing a previously obtained ID. The correct usage can only be inferred from the naming convention.

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