list_wellbeing

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds further transparency by explaining that the tool is not a prerequisite for update/delete operations and that it returns ids useful for resolving ambiguous matches. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Every sentence contributes: the main purpose, the relationship to update/delete, the 31-day limit, and the parameter defaults. No redundant or filler content; the structure flows logically from what the tool does to how to use it.

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?

Given the two optional parameters and the presence of an output schema (mentioned in context), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to call the tool correctly. It covers parameter defaults, usage scenarios, and operational limits, so no missing information would cause incorrect invocation.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters with types and defaults, and the description reinforces their behavior ('INFER — do not ask' with default values), clarifying that the agent should infer these rather than prompt the user. This adds semantic value beyond the schema's basic metadata.

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?

Clearly states the action ('List wellbeing log entries') and the resource, with explicit scope ('within a date range'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that update_wellbeing and delete_wellbeing can resolve entries on their own, making list_wellbeing specific to trend queries and id retrieval after ambiguous matches.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for trends over time or getting an id after an ambiguous match, and explicitly states it is not required before update/delete. Also gives operational constraints (maximum 31 days per call) and default parameter values, leaving no ambiguity.

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