List Google Health Data Points

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Query' aligns with these. However, the description adds only a note about kebab-case data types and does not disclose behaviors like pagination, privacy_mode handling, or the requirement of explicit_user_intent for raw mode. It does not contradict the 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 succinct sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second gives a format instruction with examples. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 tool has 7 parameters and a rich output schema, the description provides only the essential purpose and data_type format. It does not mention filtering capabilities, pagination, privacy modes, or response formats, but these are partly covered by the schema and parameter descriptions. The lack of contrast with sibling tools makes it slightly incomplete for selection, but the output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 57%; data_type, filter, privacy_mode, and explicit_user_intent have descriptions in the schema. The description contributes by emphasizing kebab-case format for data_type and giving examples (steps, sleep, heart-rate), but it does not explain filter, pagination, page_size, page_token, or response_format. The schema covers those partially.

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 uses the verb 'Query' and identifies the resource as 'detailed data points for a Google Health data type', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_health_list_data_types (which lists types) and google_health_daily_rollup (which provides rollups). However, 'detailed' is vague and does not explicitly contrast with rollup/summary tools.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The description only instructs on kebab-case data types, which is a parameter format note, not tool selection. It fails to mention that for rollup/summary views, one should use google_health_daily_rollup or daily_summary, and for listing available data types, use google_health_list_data_types.

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