get_recovery_trend

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool aggregates recovery facts and includes missing-date metadata, which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, timezone handling, or behavior for invalid day values; the read-only nature is only implied by the name.

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?

A single sentence delivers the tool's purpose and key constraint with no filler. All words add information; the day ranges and output content are front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, this description covers the main call contract: it names the resource, the allowed day values, and the output categories. What's missing is mostly edge-case behavior (invalid day values, timezone) and explicit sibling differentiation, which are secondary for a read-only trend tool.

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 schema only defines 'days' with no description (0% coverage), but the description adds significant meaning by constraining accepted values to 7, 14, or 28 and framing days as the trend window. It does not explain the default or invalid input behavior, but it exceeds the schema's information.

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 a specific resource ('recovery trend') and a precise temporal window (7, 14, or 28 days) with clear output content (facts, averages, missing-date metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling get_recovery without needing to name alternatives.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is provided. The intended use is implied by 'recovery trend' and the day ranges, but an agent is not told when to prefer this over get_recovery or other wellness tools.

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