Google Health Demo

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does so by clarifying that the tool returns synthetic 'example payloads' rather than real data, and it labels them as 'Pixel-Watch-style' to frame their realistic-but-demo nature.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the operation, names the exact payload types, and gives the purpose with zero filler. Each clause adds necessary information, making it highly efficient.

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 provides a clear high-level picture of what the tool returns and why, which is especially valuable given there is no output schema. It doesn't enumerate the payload structures or mention response format details, but for a read-only demo tool with safety annotations, this level of completeness 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no guidance about the `response_format` parameter, even though it is the only parameter and controls markdown vs JSON output. The parameter is optional and self-explanatory, but the description still fails to compensate for the schema's lack of semantic detail.

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 specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('realistic Pixel-Watch-style example payloads') and names the three tools whose contracts it demonstrates. The stated purpose, 'so agents see the contract before calling real Google Health APIs', clearly differentiates this demo tool from the many API-calling siblings.

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 explicitly signals when to use it: before calling real Google Health APIs, framing it as a contract-preview/demo tool. It does not spell out exclusions or name alternatives directly, but the intended use is unambiguous given the sibling list and the phrase 'before calling real Google Health APIs'.

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