Wearables Sync Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, providing a solid safety profile. The description adds context about data flowing into HealthClaw as FHIR Observations, but does not detail any additional behavioral traits like error handling or pagination. The added value is moderate.

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 well-structured, starting with the core function, followed by use case and data flow. It is informative without being excessively verbose. A minor reduction for including information about HealthClaw that is not essential for immediate tool usage.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, usage context, and output format. It also references the UI resource URI and relates to other tools, making it complete for agent decision-making.

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 covers 100% of parameters (tenant_id with description). The description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool lists wearable connections with details like last sync time, observation count, and status. It lists supported brands and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fhir_search by stating its specific use for checking sync status, not reading observations.

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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Use this to tell a patient what's connected, when data last arrived, and surface a connection-management UI.' It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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