Google Health Privacy Audit

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly guarantees not revealing secret values and enumerates the inspected areas (local privacy, cache, token-path, env-presence). This rises above simply relying on the annotation flags.

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 of 14 words that conveys the core purpose and a key safety behavior. Every element is relevant and there is no redundant wording.

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 is read-only, has a single optional parameter, and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential purpose and safety behavior. It leaves the exact shape of 'posture' open, but that is likely defined by the output schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for a simple audit 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?

The schema defines one optional param 'response_format' with an enum, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention this parameter. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, even though the enum is self-explanatory.

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 specifies a concrete action ('Return') and identifies the resource scope: local privacy, cache, token-path, and env-presence posture. This clearly separates it from cache-only or connection-only tools, though it does not explicitly name siblings or provide a contrasting alternative.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like google_health_cache_status or google_health_connection_status. The description implies a privacy-focused audit but does not state selection criteria, exclusions, or use-case context.

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