CGM hypo events

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the algorithm (contiguous runs, severity levels), output structure, and includes a medical disclaimer, but lacks disclosure of side effects, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 a single paragraph but well-structured, opening with version and main function, detailing output fields, and ending with a disclaimer. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence serves a purpose.

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 complexity (6 parameters, missing output schema), the description covers return structure, severity, recovery time, and totals. It lacks error conditions and edge cases but compensates with thorough algorithmic detail.

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 covers 100% of parameters, yet the description adds significant value by explaining how parameters affect event detection (e.g., contiguous runs, recovery time calculation, severity thresholds) beyond schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool detects hypoglycemia events over a specified date range, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cgm_daily_summary or cgm_time_in_range by focusing on event detection with severity and recovery metrics.

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 use for detecting hypo events but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives among siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage context somewhat implied.

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