read_health_data

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It goes beyond the basic action by disclosing that the server is intentionally read-only by design, that data lives in a local health database, and that no write tool exists. This meaningfully informs the agent that calls are safe and non-mutating.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and the specific data types, and the second adds valuable read-only context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with two optional, fully documented date parameters, an output schema, and explicit read-only context, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is not naming the sibling explicitly, but the health-domain framing makes the intended use unambiguous.

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 both start_date and end_date fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already provides complete parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Read') and a concrete resource ('local health database'), then enumerates the exact metrics: daily steps, sleep hours, and resting heart rate. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling read_finance_data by data domain and content.

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 the tool name and the described health metrics, but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over read_finance_data or provide exclusion conditions. The read-only statement does address the absence of a write counterpart, but it does not fully position this tool against its sibling.

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