CGM demo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by clarifying that the payloads are 'realistic example payloads' rather than real data, and that usage is for pre-configuration preview. This is useful context beyond 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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action and the resources involved, and the second sentence gives the usage context. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 demo tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, which payloads it covers, and when to use it. It does not detail the privacy_mode parameter, but that is fully specified in the schema. It does not describe return structure, but for a demo tool that is not critical.

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 coverage is 100% because the privacy_mode parameter has a clear description in the input schema. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, but it doesn't need to; the schema already fully explains it. Therefore, the description adds no additional semantic value over the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and a concrete resource ('realistic example payloads of cgm_glucose_now, cgm_daily_summary, and cgm_meal_response'). It also gives the intended use case ('before configuring Dexcom'), which clearly distinguishes this demo tool from the real data-fetching siblings like cgm_glucose_now.

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 to help users see what the connector will return before configuring Dexcom', which gives a clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer it should be used for previews rather than real data retrieval.

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