health_export_get_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context like 'raw' and 'custom calculations' but does not mention potential rate limits, pagination, output format, or error handling. Given it is a read-only get operation, the lack of such detail is acceptable but still not fully transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the second sentence provides usage guidance. There is no redundant or irrelevant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple 3-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It explains what the tool does and when to use it. However, it could be more complete by clarifying the distinction from the sibling 'health_export_metrics', which might otherwise cause confusion.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description only echoes 'date range' and 'specific metrics' without adding new meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema already states. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 function: 'Get raw health metrics data for a specific date range.' It identifies a specific verb (Get) and resource (raw health metrics data), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'health_export_report' or 'health_export_ask' by emphasizing raw data and custom calculations.

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 context: 'Use this when you need to analyze specific metrics or perform custom calculations.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as using 'health_export_report' for pre-built reports.

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