Air privacy audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context about what the tool returns (local storage, provider data, non-logged items, agent rules), which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose details like output format or potential side effects, though none are expected given the read-only nature.

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, well-structured sentence that packs essential information without any filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the list of returned items is comprehensive yet concise.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations), the description covers the core behavior adequately. It explains what the tool returns, and the schema defines the parameter. Minor gaps remain around return format or how privacy_mode affects the output, but these are partially addressed in the parameter description. Overall, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema description covers 100% of the parameter, including the enum values and their effect (summary omits identifiers, structured/raw return full payload). The tool description itself adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 starts with a concrete verb 'Returns' and specifies the exact resource: wellness-air's local storage, provider transmissions, non-logged items, and agent rules. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like air_data_inventory or air_connection_status by focusing on privacy audit content.

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 implies the tool is used to retrieve privacy-related information about wellness-air, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage context is inferable from the name and content, but no direct guidance is given.

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