Google Health Connection Status

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

Annotations already indicate readonly, nondestructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying that the tool does not call Google APIs and does not expose secrets, consistent with annotations and providing concrete behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that lists key checks and constraints without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

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?

The description covers what the tool checks but does not mention the output format or structure. Although an output schema is available, the agent would benefit from knowing that the tool returns markdown or JSON based on the 'response_format' parameter and what fields are included.

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 0% description coverage for parameters. The description does not explain the purpose or impact of 'client' enum values or 'response_format' beyond their enum names. Without additional guidance, an agent may not know how to choose a client type or when to use which format.

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 checks local Google Health configuration, token file, Node version, privacy mode, cache readiness, and optional client readiness, explicitly noting it does not call Google APIs or expose secrets. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that may make API calls.

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 this tool is for local health checks without network calls, contrasting with other tools that likely call Google APIs. However, it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus other siblings like google_health_cache_status or google_health_capabilities.

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