Get Irregular Rhythm Notification Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by specifying the exact scope needed and labeling the operation as 'non-diagnostic', which provides practical safety guidance beyond the structured hints.

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 only two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence immediately states the core action, and the second provides essential context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers the tool's primary function and a critical requirement (scope). With an output schema existing, return value documentation is not needed. Minor omission: no mention of when to use the privacy_mode or response_format parameters, but those are self-explanatory from the schema.

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 provides no additional information about the two parameters beyond what is already documented in the input schema. Since the schema descriptions cover both parameters adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'irregular rhythm notification (IRN) engagement status', and specifies the concrete data point 'whether the AFib detection feature is enabled'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_health_get_profile by targeting a specific health feature.

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 explicitly mentions the required scope and setup command, which guides credential preparation. However, it does not contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity in context of the sibling list.

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