Delx Wellness Onboarding Flow

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

The description confirms read-only behavior (does not persist), aligning with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It adds value by detailing the return content (11 questions, profile state, missing fields) and cross-connector sharing, which annotations do not cover. This provides sufficient behavioral transparency for a read-only tool.

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 front-loaded with purpose and uses only four sentences, each adding value. The list of connectors is slightly lengthy but provides important context about shared profiles. Overall, it is concise without unnecessary detail.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (11 questions, profile state, missing fields). It covers usage context (pairing with profile_update) and cross-connector sharing. However, it could mention error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., authentication) for completeness.

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 does not explain the two parameters (locale, response_format) beyond what the schema provides. The schema descriptions are minimal and one appears erroneous (response_format description repeats locale's). With only 50% schema coverage and no additional parameter guidance in the description, the agent lacks clarity on how to use these options.

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 returns the 11-question onboarding flow plus current profile state and missing fields, using a specific verb (Return) and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying its read-only nature and pairing with google_health_profile_update, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly pairs the tool with google_health_profile_update for saving answers, providing clear usage context. It also mentions cross-connector profile sharing, implying the tool is the entry point for onboarding across multiple MCPs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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