Check Data Sources

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations by explaining that the tool surveys all sources at once and returns per-source status and counts. This behavioral context is not deducible from annotations alone.

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: first describes functionality, second gives usage guidance. No filler, every word adds value. Front-loaded with the key action ('Survey ALL').

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?

Given the zero-parameter input and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and when to use it. It could be slightly more detailed about the output format, but it is adequate.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema covers all. The description doesn't need to add parameter info, and a baseline of 4 is appropriate as per guidelines.

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 the specific verb 'Survey' and clearly states it checks ALL connected health data sources at once, returning connection status and record counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wearables_sync_status which focus on a single source.

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?

Explicitly provides use cases: 'when the patient asks what's connected or to check for data across services.' While it doesn't list exclusions, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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