Wellness Onboarding Flow

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable context by noting 'Strava continues to redact GPS by default — onboarding does not change that.' This clarifies the tool's non-effect on privacy settings, which goes beyond the structured annotations. The description does not contradict 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the key information ('Read-only. Return...'), then expands on use case and a privacy note. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the inclusion of the field list ('preferred_name, goals, devices, training context, nutrition, preferences, and safety') makes it slightly dense. Still, it's well-structured.

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 description covers what the tool returns (11-question flow, current profile, missing fields, connector hint), the use case, and the privacy implication. With no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect. It lacks a mention of response_format handling in the description, but the schema covers that, and the overall context is complete.

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%, with 'locale' described in the schema and 'response_format' missing a description. The description adds 'en or pt-BR' which repeats the enum values for locale but doesn't clarify response_format's meaning. The description provides some context (e.g., defaults) but doesn't fully compensate for the missing parameter doc. With 50% coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Return the 11-question Delx Wellness onboarding flow (en or pt-BR), the current shared profile, missing critical fields, and a cross-connector hint.' This is a specific verb ('Return') with a clear resource and scope, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the onboarding flow for wellness sessions.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user starts a fresh wellness session and you need to fill out preferred_name, goals, devices, training context, nutrition, preferences, and safety.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the use case is well-defined.

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