Get Shared Wellness Profile

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description discloses important privacy details (no OAuth tokens, API keys, or biomarkers) and a critical behavioral caveat that reading this profile does not change Strava's GPS-redaction default. This adds significant context about data contents and side effects that annotations do not cover.

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 each sentence earning its place. It covers purpose, data contents, and a caveat without fluff, and is appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives sufficient context: it explains what the profile is, what it contains, and a key caveat about GPS redaction. It does not explicitly describe the return structure or the response_format behavior, but the schema's enum partially covers that gap.

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 mention the response_format parameter at all, despite the schema having 0% description coverage on properties. While the schema includes an enum and default, the description fails to compensate by explaining how the agent might control output format, making the parameter semantics less discoverable in the narrative.

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 ('Read') and resource ('canonical Delx Wellness profile'), and clarifies it is the shared profile across wellness MCP connectors. It also notes what data it contains (onboarding input only), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like strava_get_athlete or strava_profile_update.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to access the shared wellness profile across connectors. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the mention of 'shared with other wellness MCP connectors' and the contrast with Strava GPS redaction imply a distinct role from Strava-specific data tools.

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