Reconcile Google Health Data Points

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral context of 'reconciled stream' and 'across sources', but does not disclose pagination behavior, privacy mode effects, or response format details. This is modest added value beyond 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action 'Read a reconciled stream'. It is concise with no redundant wording. It could benefit from more detail, but it earns its place by being direct and scannable.

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?

Despite having annotations and an output schema, the description is minimal for a tool with 8 parameters and 50% schema coverage. It does not mention key behavioral options like privacy_mode, explicit_user_intent, or response_format, which are crucial for correct usage. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to understand all relevant parameters and modes.

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 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It repeats data source family names already present as enum values in the schema, adding no new semantic meaning. The description does not clarify page_size, page_token, response_format, or data_source_family beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies a read operation for a reconciled stream across sources, which distinguishes it from raw data tools. It mentions specific data source families, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like google_health_list_data_points, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer reconciled data over raw list_data_points, nor does it list exclusions. The usage context is implied but not stated.

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