Get Google Health Settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by requiring a specific settings scope and specifying that these are settings for the authenticated user, which goes beyond what annotations alone communicate.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose and the key prerequisite with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded and 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?

For a simple read-only settings getter with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, gives examples, and states the required scope. It does not discuss the optional privacy/format parameters, but the input schema documents those adequately.

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%, and the description adds little parameter-specific meaning: it never mentions privacy_mode, response_format, or explicit_user_intent. However, the schema itself documents two parameters well and the third is self-explanatory from its enum and default, so the description does not need to compensate heavily.

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 and resource: 'Get authenticated user settings' and gives concrete examples ('units and timezone'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like identity/profile/status tools, even without naming them.

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 gives useful context ('authenticated user settings') and a prerequisite ('Requires settings scope'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus any alternative. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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