get_founder_wellness

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operations with flexible data. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains what gets tracked (work patterns), the output format (risk score + recovery actions), and the tool's proactive purpose ('before you notice'). No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains the tool's function and output, the second provides motivational context. Every phrase adds value with zero wasted words, and key information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and why. However, without an output schema, the description could be more specific about the exact format of the 'risk score and specific recovery actions' to help the agent interpret results better.

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%, providing full parameter documentation. The description doesn't add specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema already explains (userId for personalized tracking, mode for output type). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('checks', 'tracks', 'gives') and resources ('consecutive work days, late nights, and meeting density', 'risk score and specific recovery actions'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on founder wellness/burnout assessment, unlike other tools that handle sales, prospecting, or account management functions.

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 usage context ('Because the founder who crashes can't close deals') suggesting it's for founders concerned about burnout, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No specific exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided, leaving guidance at an implied level.

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