calculate_health_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the output shape ('normalized scores, system breakdowns, and interpretation'), which is useful, but it does not mention failure modes, required parameter count, or edge cases. For a pure calculation tool, this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The action and object come first, and the return summary is contained in a single clause. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 compute-only tool, the description covers both the operation and the return payload, and the schema fully covers inputs. There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains return values. It could be more complete with usage guidance and edge-case behavior, but nothing essential is missing for invoking the tool successfully.

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 100%, with all four parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds only a high-level 'patient parameters' framing and the 8-system framework, so it does not materially improve on the schema's parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('health scores'), and adds the 8-system framework and return type. It is clearly distinct from siblings like recommend_smart_cards and generate_care_plan, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_care_plan or recommend_smart_cards. The context is only implied by 'based on patient parameters'; there are no explicit prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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