Google Health Connection Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds critical context: no Google API calls, no secrets exposure, and checks specific local items. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action verb 'Check' and lists all relevant items without unnecessary words.

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 read-only diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description covers the state space comprehensively: local config, token, Node version, privacy mode, cache, and MCP client readiness. The output schema likely handles return structure, so no further detail needed.

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 input schema has 2 parameters (client, response_format) with enums and defaults, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any parameter meaning or behavior. While the parameters are simple, the description fails to add value for parameter semantics.

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 checks local configuration, token file, Node version, privacy mode, cache readiness, and optional MCP client readiness. It emphasizes that no Google APIs are called and no secrets are exposed, distinguishing it from sibling tools like google_health_capabilities or google_health_cache_status.

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 local health checks without external calls. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the sibling context shows distinct purposes, making usage relatively clear.

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