health_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for an invalid/missing name, or result shape — so it contributes little on this dimension.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is also why it leaves gaps elsewhere.

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 read tool whose annotations already convey the safety profile, the description is minimally adequate. It omits failure modes (unknown resource name) and any return-value orientation, but with no output schema and full read-only annotations, those omissions are not fatal.

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 carry the load for the single parameter. It does partially compensate by stating that the value must be the complete Google Health resource name rather than an ID fragment, but it gives no example format or path syntax.

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 names a specific verb (讀回 / read back) and resource (資料點 / data point) and specifies the lookup key (full Google Health resource name). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like health_list or health_catalog, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus health_list (enumerate) or health_catalog/health_schema (discovery). The only implied guidance is that the caller must already possess a full resource name, which is a weak hint rather than a routing rule.

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