List Paired Devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully describing the safety profile. The description adds the redundant 'Read-only' and the scope 'authenticated account', which adds minimal new behavioral context. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences with no superfluous text. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with a practical use case. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (list with pagination and optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides the core purpose and one use case but omits details on pagination, parameter behavior, and how privacy_mode or response_format affect output. The low schema coverage exacerbates this gap.

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 4 parameters with only 25% description coverage (just privacy_mode). The description does not mention any parameter, their defaults, or usage. The agent must rely entirely on the schema, which lacks sufficient documentation for page_size, page_token, and response_format. This is a significant gap.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'devices paired to the authenticated Google Health account' with concrete examples (Fitbit trackers, Pixel Watches). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_data_points and list_data_types.

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 a clear use case ('is my watch syncing?' and identifying device-data associations). However, it does not explicitly warn against using this tool when other operations are needed, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria. The context is helpful but lacks contrast with alternatives.

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