Get Google Health Profile

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the auth scope requirement, which is genuinely useful beyond annotations. It does not disclose other behavioral details such as redaction or privacy-mode effects, but the output schema and parameter descriptions partially cover those, so the added value lands at an adequate, not exceptional, level.

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 with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded and the scope prerequisite is told in one additional sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 the low complexity (zero required parameters, no nested objects), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gap is the lack of sibling differentiation, especially against google_health_profile_get, but nothing critical about invoking the tool is missing.

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 description adds no parameter-level detail; the schema provides descriptions for privacy_mode and explicit_user_intent, and response_format has a default and enum. With schema coverage around 67%, the description does not compensate for the half-documented response_format parameter, but the enum values are largely self-explanatory, so the 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 action ('Get'), the resource ('authenticated user profile details'), and the source ('Google Health'), so an agent can infer the tool's basic purpose. However, it does not distinguish this from the nearly identically named sibling 'google_health_profile_get', so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 'Requires profile scope' note provides a useful prerequisite and implies this is the tool for retrieving the authenticated user's profile. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives such as google_health_profile_get, google_health_get_identity, or google_health_get_settings, leaving selection among siblings to inference.

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