mah_get_health_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and "Fetch" is consistent with it (no contradiction). The description adds the content scope (header + action plans) but says nothing about return shape, size, or how action plans are structured. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this partial addition is a 3.

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 (health-summary header, action plans) is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only getter with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. The one real gap is that with no output schema the description should clarify what the "header" and "action plans" return looks like, which it leaves vague.

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 100% and the single view parameter has an unusually thorough enum description covering compact/full semantics and per-reader projection behavior. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Fetch") and resource ("health-summary header and action plans"), which distinguishes it from the mah_list_* record-enumeration siblings. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the closest-sounding getter, mah_get_patient_context, 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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The reader/list_* siblings plus mah_get_patient_context create real ambiguity about which fetch to call, and the description offers nothing to resolve it.

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