health_schema

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 covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no mention of caching, upstream source, failure modes when a data_type is unknown, or what the referenced schemas represent.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the resource being fetched is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted 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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema and an open-world source, the agent still needs to know what data_type tokens are legal and roughly what shape comes back. The description supplies neither, leaving it under-specified relative to the tool's actual complexity.

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% for the single required parameter, and the description only echoes it vaguely as '特定資料類型' without listing valid data_type values, casing/format, or where to discover them. With one undocumented required param, the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb (取得/get) and resource (官方 Discovery 欄位與所有引用 schema) scoped to a data type, so an agent can tell this returns schema metadata rather than health records. However it offers no explicit differentiation from schema-adjacent siblings like health_catalog or health_get, and 'Discovery 欄位' is jargon an agent must guess at.

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 when-to-use guidance, no condition that selects this over health_catalog or health_get, and no prerequisites named. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the tool name.

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