Get Google Health Identity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this: it notes the operation is for the authenticated user and implies a mapping is returned, but it does not describe what the mapping contains or any additional behavior. This is an acceptable baseline given the strong 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 short sentences: the first states the core action, the second provides a use case. There is no extraneous information, and the most critical details (what and why) are front-loaded. This is an example of concise and structured writing.

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 tool is simple, has an output schema, and strong annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. It covers the purpose and a concrete use case. It could benefit from a bit more about what 'identity mapping' entails, but the output schema likely fills that gap. Overall, the description is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 67%, which is moderate. The description does not mention any parameters, relying on the schema to explain privacy_mode and explicit_user_intent. Since response_format lacks a description, there is a minor gap, but the enum constraints and the schema's existing descriptions cover most of the semantic burden. The description adds no extra parameter detail, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets the Google Health identity mapping for the authenticated user, using a specific verb ('get') and a distinct resource ('identity mapping'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_profile and get_settings by explicitly naming the identity mapping, and the Fitbit migration context adds further specificity.

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 provides clear context by stating 'Useful for Fitbit-to-Google migrations,' which signals when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the use case is specific enough to guide selection among the many sibling tools.

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