Google Health Privacy Audit

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent. Description adds value by clarifying that no secret values are revealed, which is critical for an audit tool. Provides specific items audited: privacy, cache, token-path, env-presence.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key info. Some jargon ('env-presence posture') slightly reduces clarity, but overall concise.

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?

With a single optional parameter and annotations present, the description is adequate but lacks elaboration on what 'posture' entails or how the output is structured. Could be more complete.

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 only parameter (response_format) has 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention or explain this parameter, missing an opportunity to clarify output options.

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?

Description clearly states it returns privacy, cache, token-path, and env-presence posture without revealing secrets. Verb 'Return' and resource 'posture' are specific. Distinguishes from sibling tools like cache_status or connection_status because it focuses on privacy audit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cache_status or data_inventory. No exclusions or context provided.

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