Delx Wellness Onboarding Flow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces with 'Read-only — does NOT persist anything' and adds cross-connector sharing behavior, providing useful context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with zero wasted words: the first states core functionality and read-only nature, the second provides pairing instructions, and the third adds cross-connector context. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return type (11-question flow, profile state, missing fields) and side effects (read-only, cross-connector). It lacks detail on the exact structure of the response but is sufficient for an AI agent to understand what to expect.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage (locale has description, response_format does not), the description does not add any parameter-specific information. The schema already covers the enum values and defaults, so the description offers no additional value for parameter semantics, meeting the baseline for this coverage level.

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 plus current profile state and missing fields, using the verb 'Return'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying pairing with withings_profile_update and cross-connector profile sharing, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Pair with withings_profile_update once the user answers.' It also implies when to use (to get onboarding flow and profile) and alludes to alternatives via sibling context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, which would raise the score to 5.

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