CGM privacy audit

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lowered. The description adds meaningful scope context by listing the categories of information returned. It doesn't describe the output format or whether the audit reflects live configuration, but given annotation coverage this is acceptable.

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, front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and then enumerates the covered scopes in compact list form. There is zero waste; every clause earns its place.

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 read-only privacy audit with one optional, fully-documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns. The four enumerated coverage areas give an agent enough to decide and invoke correctly; a dedicated explanation of output shape is not strictly necessary here.

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 100% — the privacy_mode parameter is fully documented with its enum values (summary/structured/raw) and behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the full burden.

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 clear verb ('Returns') and a specific resource: the privacy audit of wellness-cgm-mcp. It enumerates precisely what is covered — local storage, what is sent to Dexcom, what is never logged, and agent rules — which distinguishes it from sibling data-retrieval tools like cgm_glucose_now or cgm_connection_status.

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 purpose is self-evident enough that an agent seeking privacy/logging information would naturally select this tool, but the description offers no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance, no exclusion conditions, and names no sibling to disambiguate against. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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