Get Google Health Profile

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and destructive=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds the auth scope requirement and 'authenticated user' context, which are useful behavioral details beyond annotations. Output schema covers return format, reducing the need for further transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core function and requirement without any unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise.

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?

Annotations and output schema cover safety and return values, but the description fails to distinguish this tool from google_health_profile_get or explain when to use it in the broader tool ecosystem. For a simple get operation, it is minimally viable but lacks integration context.

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%, with privacy_mode and explicit_user_intent documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter information, but the missing response_format is self-explanatory via its enum. The schema does the heavy lifting, so a baseline 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's function: 'Get authenticated user profile details from Google Health' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool google_health_profile_get, which appears to be a near-duplicate.

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 only mentions 'Requires profile scope', which is an authorization prerequisite, not guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this over profile_get, list_data_points, or other related tools.

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