Get wellness record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: no indication of what a wellness record contains, whether a missing date returns empty or errors, or any auth/quota context. It does not contradict the annotations, it simply adds no behavioral value.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient rather than padded, though the brevity leaves no room for the routing or return-shape context an agent would benefit from.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description does not tell the agent what a wellness record actually holds. Minimal but defensible.

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%, and the single date parameter is fully documented with a regex pattern and YYYY-MM-DD guidance. The description cannot add meaning beyond the schema here, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource ("Get the wellness record") narrowed by scope ("for a specific date"), which distinguishes it from the range-oriented list_wellness and the mutating update_wellness. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by "for a specific date" — a single-record fetch — but the description never says when to prefer it over list_wellness or what to do for a range. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no named alternative.

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