get_health_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool does (retrieve by ID) but doesn't disclose what happens if the ID doesn't exist (error behavior), whether related data (tags, relations) is included, or read-only semantics. It adds minimal beyond the name.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence. For a simple single-parameter getter, this is appropriately compact with no wasted words. Could arguably add a bit more context, but for the simplicity level this is well-sized.

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 single-parameter getter with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely adequate. The tool retrieves a health entry by ID—the core purpose is clear. However, no annotations and no description of return contents or not-found behavior slightly reduce completeness, but this is acceptable for a simple read tool.

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 coverage is 100% with a single 'id' (UUID) parameter already described in the schema. The description's parenthetical '(IDで指定)' reinforces that the id parameter is the lookup key but adds nothing beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 '健康エントリを取得 (IDで指定)' states a clear verb+resource (retrieve health entry) and specifies it's by ID. It's a simple single-resource getter with an obvious purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_hobby or get_skill, though the resource name already differentiates them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. With many sibling get_* tools, there's no mention of when to prefer this for health entries versus other retrieval tools, nor any nuance about health-entry-specific considerations.

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