Get Shared Wellness Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by bounding the data contents (only onboarding-typed data, never OAuth tokens, API keys, or biomarkers). It does not say whether the profile can be empty or how sharing with other connectors is governed, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the identity of the resource comes first, followed by the safety scope. Every sentence carries information.

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 no output schema, the description should characterize the return; it partially does by scoping what the profile does and does not store. It omits the actual profile fields returned and the response_format behavior, which are the remaining gaps for a zero-required-parameter read 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 never mentions the single response_format parameter (markdown/json, default markdown). The enum values are largely self-explanatory, so this is a minor gap rather than a severe one, but the description does not compensate for the uncovered 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and a specific resource (the canonical Delx Wellness profile), and identifies the profile's scope (shared across wellness MCP connectors). This is clearly separable from the sibling polar_profile_update, which writes the same resource.

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?

Usage is implied ('Read the canonical... profile') but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to the obvious alternative polar_profile_update for write scenarios. Adequate but leaves the choice between read and update to inference.

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