get_readiness_summary

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, the description adds the critical constraint 'Do not invent a readiness score' and requires a specific data flow (officialSleepRecords from querySleepData). It also names the data sources that feed the summary. No contradiction with annotations; the routing and combination behavior are consistent with a read-only, open-world tool.

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 terse sentences with the critical routing constraint front-loaded. The wording is dense and uses an internal tool reference (COROS_MCP_2 querySleepData) but contains no filler. It lacks a one-line purpose statement, which would make it clearer, but it is well under the usual size limits.

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 omits what the tool returns (no output schema), how it obtains HRV, load, completed activities, and calendar data, and what to do if querySleepData fails or officialSleepRecords is missing. It covers only the sleep-input path. For a composite analysis tool, this leaves significant operational ambiguity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining that 'date' is the wake-up date and that officialSleepRecords must be the normalized result from querySleepData. It does not explain the individual schema fields, but those are structurally defined in the schema. The description strongly encodes the expected value of both parameters, even though it implies officialSleepRecords is mandatory while the schema marks it optional.

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 the tool combines sleep, HRV, load, completed activities and calendar, which clearly indicates a readiness-summary computation, and 'Do not invent a readiness score' sharpens its role. It does not explicitly say 'returns a readiness summary' and the opening line is a routing instruction rather than a purpose statement, but the resource and action are inferable. This differentiates it from siblings like daily_training_briefing only by the listed data sources.

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 gives a mandatory precondition (call querySleepData and pass its result as officialSleepRecords) but never says when to choose this tool over siblings like daily_training_briefing, analyze_training_day, or taper_readiness. Usage is implied by the tool name rather than explained, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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