Google Health Wellness Context

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), lowering the burden on the description. The description adds that output is normalized into a shared shape, but does not disclose how missing data is handled, whether Google Health authentication is involved, or what happens for empty inputs. There is no annotation contradiction.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, the source data, and the normalization target, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 presence of an output schema and strong annotations covers return-shape and safety details that the description would otherwise need to state. However, the one-line description leaves ambiguity about how the normalization works, what inputs are meaningful, and how this tool relates to the many sibling Google Health tools. It is minimally adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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?

Only 33% of parameters (days and timezone) have schema descriptions, and the tool description does not mention any of the six parameters. It fails to compensate for undocumented parameters like notes, soreness, injury_flags, and response_format, leaving their intended semantics largely to inference from names and default values.

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 uses a specific verb ('Normalize') and names both the input resource ('Google Health activity/sleep context') and the output target ('shared wellness_context shape'). It is distinct from sibling retrieval/summary tools because it describes a transformation, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from alternatives.

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 phrase 'for recommendation engines' gives an implied use context, but the description does not explain when to choose this tool over related siblings like google_health_rollup, google_health_daily_summary, or google_health_data_inventory. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing guidance is provided.

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