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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it returns an interactive picker plus a text fallback, and OAuth approval and credentials happen on freddy or the provider rather than in chat. That credential-handling disclosure is exactly the kind of thing annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, destructiveHint false) cannot convey on their own.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool connects, then return shape, then auth behavior, then the one parameter caveat. Little waste, though the original_question sentence duplicates schema text.

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?

Covers what the tool does, what it returns, where the credential hand-off occurs, and the one conditional parameter. With an output schema present, return values need no further explanation, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters in depth (including the oversized-question and no-logging behavior). The description mostly restates the original_question guidance rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 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?

Uses a specific verb ('Connect') plus an enumerated resource set (wearable, ring, CGM, training platform, gym log, Apple Health, Health Connect), which is far more concrete than a generic 'connect a source'. The connect verb separates it from siblings like sync_source, disconnect_source, and connection_status, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives conditional guidance for one parameter ('When a health question triggered this tool, pass original_question'), which implies the standalone-connect case by contrast. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to connection_status or sync_source for adjacent needs, so the agent must infer the routing.

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