query_observations

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries real weight here and delivers: it discloses the >90-day weekly min/avg/max aggregation rule and that unconfirmed values are excluded. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations, though response shape/pagination is left to the output schema.

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?

Three terse fragments, core purpose front-loaded, no filler. The telegraphic style is efficient though it reads more like shorthand notes than a polished description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a two-parameter read-only query the description covers scope, aggregation behavior, and data filtering; only the type_code vocabulary and the days default remain implicit.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It gives an example value for type_code and explains that days controls the window and triggers weekly aggregation past 90 days, but says nothing about the default of 365 or valid code formats, leaving part of the burden unaddressed.

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?

Names a specific resource (marker values) and the shape of the query (over N days) with a concrete example code ('cholesterol_total'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from similar-looking siblings such as get_trend or get_health_summary, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

No statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_trend or query_nutrition, and no prerequisites. The 'only confirmed (approved) values' clause hints at data scope but is a filter, not usage guidance.

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