Google Health Privacy Audit

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee: it returns posture without revealing secret values, and it enumerates the inspected scopes (privacy, cache, token-path, env-presence), which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and result, then adds the critical safety qualifier, making it both concise and well-structured.

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?

With an output schema present, read-only/idempotent annotations, and only one optional self-documenting parameter, the description provides enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The main missing piece, explicit sibling differentiation, is a usage-guideline concern rather than a completeness gap for calling the tool.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the response_format parameter at all. The parameter is optional and well-constrained by the enum and default (markdown/json), so the omission is not severe, but the description still adds no semantic value for the parameter.

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 names a specific verb ('Return'), resource ('local privacy, cache, token-path and env-presence posture'), and an explicit constraint ('without revealing secret values'). This makes its purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from sibling health/status tools as a privacy audit rather than a connectivity or rollup tool.

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 clearly implies use when a local privacy/cache/token-path audit is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the many sibling google_health tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool names are mentioned, so selection guidance is left to inference.

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