query_health_data

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'answers over whatever the file holds' and implies a routing behavior, but it does not mention side effects, limitations, error handling, or read-only status. Some context is provided, but significant gaps remain.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary details or repetition.

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 convenience tool, the description provides adequate operational context: it mentions calling list_metrics first and being a fallback to specific tools. However, since there is no output schema, it does not explain the return format or potential failure modes, which is a minor 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 schema has one parameter 'question' with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by stating 'pass a question,' clarifying that the parameter is a natural-language question. However, it lacks examples, expected format, or any hints on how the question will be routed, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 tool's purpose: 'pass a question and get routed structured results.' It distinguishes itself from specific sibling tools by saying 'prefer the specific tools above,' indicating this is a general natural-language fallback. The verb and resource are clear, though the exact nature of 'structured results' is vague.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Prefer the specific tools above when you can' and advises calling list_metrics first to assess available history. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context, directly addressing alternatives.

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