Google Health Connection Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that it does not call Google APIs and does not expose secrets, which are important guarantees beyond the annotations. It does not describe any side effects (there are none), but the added constraints are useful.

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 a single sentence, but it is information-dense and front-loaded with the verb and object. It avoids fluff and covers multiple aspects efficiently. However, it reads as a long list that could be slightly more structured, but overall it is appropriately sized for the content.

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 status/diagnostic tool, the description covers the key areas checked and explicitly states non-behaviors (no API call, no secret exposure). It mentions MCP client readiness, which aligns with the client parameter. Since an output schema exists (though not shown), return values are likely documented. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's scope and invoke it appropriately.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the 'client' parameter with 'optional MCP client readiness' and says nothing about 'response_format'. The enums and defaults are present in the schema, but the description fails to explain how these parameters affect behavior or how to select values, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and a well-defined resource (local Google Health config, token file, Node version, privacy mode, cache readiness, MCP client readiness). It explicitly scopes the tool to local checks and clarifies what it does NOT do (calling APIs or exposing secrets), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 conveys a clear usage context: it is a safe, local, non-network diagnostic tool. The phrase 'without calling Google APIs or exposing secrets' implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (e.g., for local troubleshooting) and that it is non-invasive. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, so it falls short of the highest guidance standard.

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