Get Shared Wellness Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context by explaining the profile contains only onboarding input and never OAuth tokens, API keys, or biomarkers, enhancing transparency beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and scope, and each sentence adds distinct value. No unnecessary words; perfectly concise.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema, rich annotations), the description covers the main aspects: what is read, sharing context, and safety. It lacks only an explanation of the response_format parameter, but overall it is adequate.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (response_format) with no description in schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention this parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. While the schema provides enum and default, the description should have clarified the parameter's purpose.

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 clearly states the tool reads the 'canonical Delx Wellness profile' shared with other wellness MCP connectors, distinguishing it from sibling tools that access specific Fitbit metrics. It specifies the resource and action, avoiding tautology.

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 implies usage context by mentioning the profile is shared across wellness connectors, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The guidance is clear but not comprehensive.

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