Nourish onboarding

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by stating 'Read-only' and disclosing 'non-secret data only, stored at ~/.delx-wellness/profile.json', providing context about data handling and storage 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 three sentences, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, read-only nature, and usage guidance. It could be slightly more structured but is 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?

Given the tool has no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should cover both input parameters and return value structure. It partially covers the return (11-question flow) but completely omits the two parameters. Without output schema, the return structure is not fully detailed, though the purpose is clear.

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 input schema has 2 parameters (locale, response_format) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema itself provides no descriptions. The description fails to mention either parameter or explain their effect (e.g., language selection, output format), leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them.

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 it returns the 11-question onboarding flow for the shared Delx Wellness profile, using the specific verb 'Returns'. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by specifying it's the onboarding flow and mentioning 'wellness-nourish' and the rest of the wellness stack.

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: 'The agent should ask these questions next so wellness-nourish can personalize responses'. It implies this is a prerequisite, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives from the many sibling tools.

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