list_health_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It's a read operation (safe, non-destructive) but this is not stated. The profile_id description does mention account-scoped vs profile-scoped API key behavior, which is helpful context about auth requirements, but the description itself adds nothing beyond the schema about granular/destroy behavior, rate limits, pagination semantics, or return format.

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?

Single terse Japanese sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded and efficient. However, at only 10 characters, it might be under-specification rather than conciseness—a slightly more descriptive line about filter/pagination capabilities would improve value without bloating it.

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?

With 6 parameters including nested objects (filter), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate significantly but doesn't. The schema covers the params well, but there's no mention of what the response contains, whether list_custom_entries vs list_health_entries vs list_profiles have different data shapes, or any limits/philosophy of the list. The description is adequate for simple routing but incomplete for a tool with this many options.

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 itself adds no parameter-level info beyond what the schema already states. However, the schema is quite rich (limit range, filter semantics as column:value map, offset, sort column, order direction, and profile_id auth scoping), effectively carrying the semantic burden. The description doesn't add value beyond schema but also doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 "健康エントリ一覧を取得" (Get health entry list) clearly states the verb (get/list) and resource (health entries), making the purpose identifiable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from the numerous sibling list tools (list_projects, list_skills, list_career_entries, etc.) beyond name differentiation, nor does it clarify the list's scope or what fields/entities are returned.

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 tool versus alternatives like get_health_entry, search, or list_profiles. For a tool with a filter parameter and profile scoping, there's no mention of how it relates to get_health_entry (single-item fetch) or the search tool. No exclusions, context, or alternative recommendations are provided.

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