Google Health Weekly Review

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those: beta status, non-medical scope, and missing-data awareness. These disclose important behavioral traits without contradicting 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that starts with the primary action and resource, then adds content scope and caveats. Every clause earns its place, with no repetition of schema details or padding.

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?

The tool is moderately simple, has an output schema, and its annotations already cover the safety profile. The description supplies scope, content, and important caveats. The main gap is the lack of explicit sibling routing, but that is more of a usage-guideline shortcoming than a completeness failure.

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 discuss parameters, but the schema provides descriptions for days, timezone, and compare_days. The only undocumented parameter, response_format, is self-explanatory through its enum values and default. With 75% schema coverage, the description is not required to compensate heavily.

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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Build a weekly Google Health scorecard' with explicit content areas (activity, sleep, heart context, missing-data awareness). The word 'weekly' plus 'scorecard' clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like google_health_daily_summary and google_health_rollup.

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?

Provides useful usage context such as 'Read-only, beta, non-medical', but does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions like 'use daily_summary for day-level details'. The intended usage is implied rather than stated, so an agent must infer when this tool is preferable to its many siblings.

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