get_heart_health

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the data updates rarely, which is useful. But it omits other important details such as read-only nature, authorization requirements, or data availability, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 very concise at two short sentences, front-loading the purpose and a usage tip. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, leaving parameter details unaddressed.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still needs to compensate for the completely undocumented parameters. It only covers the return type and a usage hint, not enough for a tool with four unannotated parameters.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (raw, end_date, days_back, start_date). The hint to 'take a wider period' vaguely relates to date parameters but provides no concrete mapping or formatting guidance.

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 specifies the tool returns 'vascular age and VO2max', which clearly indicates the health metrics it provides. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_heartrate, leaving some ambiguity about the full scope of 'heart health'.

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?

It advises using a wider time period due to rare updates, giving partial guidance on how to use the tool. However, it offers no comparison to sibling tools or when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_heartrate or get_spo2.

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