health_export_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the action 'Generate structured health reports' without mentioning read-only nature, permissions, return format, or side effects. It is not misleading, but it is severely under-informative.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, containing no redundant words. However, it is terse and could benefit from a brief note about report types or alternatives, but as pure conciseness it is effective.

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?

The description omits critical context: the nature of the returned report, how report_type affects output, how include_metrics interacts with dates, and the distinction from sibling tools. Since there is no output schema, the description must explain return behavior, and it fails to do so.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema; 'specific time periods' loosely maps to start_date/end_date but does not clarify relationships between parameters or report_type enum values. The schema already provides detailed parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') with a resource ('structured health reports') and scoping ('for specific time periods'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like health_export_query or health_export_get_metrics by emphasizing report generation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. The only implied usage is for generating reports over time periods, but no explicit comparison with query or metrics tools is given.

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