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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' and 'existing', which suggests a read-only operation but does not disclose whether it reflects real-time data, how recent it is, whether it triggers computation, or any rate limits or authentication needs. The term 'existing' hints that it may return stale data but leaves ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that focuses on the core action and output. It avoids unnecessary words and is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, which reduces the need to explain return values. However, the description does not clarify what 'multi-metric health analysis' includes or how it relates to the sibling tools. Given the potential for ambiguity, the description is minimally adequate but lacks enough context to be fully self-contained.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'days' parameter at all. The parameter has an enum of allowed values (14, 7, 3, 1) and a default of 7, but without any explanation in the description, the user must infer that 'days' controls the time window. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('existing multi-metric health analysis'), and specifies the output format ('structured JSON'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on single metrics (e.g., heart rate, steps), making the purpose immediately clear.

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 phrase 'existing multi-metric health analysis' implies this tool is for retrieving a precomputed aggregate summary, as opposed to the single-metric siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusion criteria, leaving the usage context only vaguely implied.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read operation ('Get') and mentions daily averaging, but does not disclose behavior around missing data, units, or permissions. Basic transparency is present but not deep.

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, concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and is easy to parse.

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 tool with an output schema present, the description adequately covers the basic functionality. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and detailed parameter behavior, but remains sufficient for straightforward use.

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 description connects the 'days' parameter to 'requested number of days,' which adds context to the schema's bare parameter title. With 0% schema description coverage, this provides minimal meaning, but the enum values and default are left for the agent to infer from the schema.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves daily average heart rate for a specified number of days, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_resting_heart_rate and get_hrv.

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 implies usage for retrieving daily average heart rate data but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over get_resting_heart_rate or get_hrv, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative guidance.

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

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

The description implies a non-destructive read operation via 'Get' but does not explicitly state side effects, dependencies, or data source. Since there are no annotations, the description carries full burden, but the simple read nature is sufficiently transparent.

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 clear sentence that gets to the point without redundancy.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides enough information for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 only parameter 'days' is meaningfully explained as 'requested number of days' in the description, which is necessary because the schema provides no descriptions. However, allowed values are left to the enum.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('daily HRV RMSSD'), and scope ('for the requested number of days'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_heart_rate or get_sleep.

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_resting_heart_rate or get_heart_rate, nor any exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does state the tool returns daily resting heart rate, which is a read-only behavior, but it does not describe response details, potential error conditions, or any limitations. For a simple getter this is acceptable, but it adds nothing beyond the tool's core function.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description is nearly complete. However, it does not explain the difference from get_heart_rate, and it leaves ambiguity about the nature of 'daily' data (e.g., array of daily values or an average). For a simple tool, this is adequate but with clear 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It links 'days' to 'requested number of days', which adds some clarity, but it is vague about whether days means calendar days, business days, or how the range ends. The enum values provide concrete options but the description does not enrich them.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('daily resting heart rate'), and specifies the temporal scope ('for the requested number of days'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_heart_rate and get_hrv, as it specifically targets resting heart rate over a period.

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 implies use when daily resting heart rate data is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like get_heart_rate or get_hrv. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get normalized daily sleep data' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as data source, normalization meaning, access requirements, or limitations. 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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'Get.' It contains no fluff or redundancy, earning its place efficiently.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits context about 'normalized' data and does not clarify temporal boundaries (e.g., whether the requested days include today). This is acceptable for basic invocation but leaves room for 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?

The schema has zero description coverage for the 'days' parameter, and the description merely repeats 'for the requested number of days,' which adds nothing beyond the parameter name. It does not explain the meaning of each enum value or any nuances.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get normalized daily sleep data' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (heart rate, HRV, steps, etc.) by focusing on sleep data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selecting this tool over siblings, leaving the agent without explicit usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'normalized' and 'for the requested number of days,' which provide some behavioral context, but it does not explain what normalization means, how the days are calculated, or any other side effects or constraints. This is minimal and leaves room for ambiguity.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main function (get normalized daily step counts) and includes the key parameter behavior (number of days) without any unnecessary detail.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, it could briefly clarify 'normalized' or the exact time window, making it complete but not exhaustive.

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 has 0% description coverage for the 'days' parameter, so the description must compensate. It states that step counts are for the requested number of days, which directly explains the semantic of the parameter beyond the enum values. This adds meaning and helps the agent understand what to provide.

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 clearly states that the tool retrieves normalized daily step counts for a specified number of days. The verb 'get' and resource 'daily step counts' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on heart rate, sleep, or health summaries.

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 implies usage when step count data is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_health_summary. There is no guidance on exclusions or comparison with siblings, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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