Google Health Daily Summary

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: the tool is beta, non-medical, and dependent on reconciled streams being available. This is meaningful but does not cover failure modes or pagination behavior.

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 exceptionally concise: the first sentence front-loads the purpose and data sources, and the second packs the read-only, beta, and non-medical caveats into a short fragment. No words are wasted.

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 that an output schema exists, the parameter schema covers the optional arguments reasonably well, and annotations communicate safety, the description provides sufficient invocation context. It could be more complete by naming when to prefer this over sibling summary/rollup tools, but that gap is mostly a usage-guidance issue.

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 only 33%, and the description does not explain `date`, `timezone`, or `response_format` at all; it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage. The schema itself provides some constraints and defaults, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair—'Build a practical daily summary'—and identifies the data sources ('Google Health rollups and reconciled streams'). This distinguishes it somewhat from raw rollup tools, though it does not explicitly contrast it with google_health_daily_rollup or google_health_weekly_summary.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as google_health_daily_rollup or google_health_weekly_summary. The phrase 'when available' refers to data availability, not tool-selection context, so an agent gets no routing help.

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