Get Glucose History

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals one behavioral trait—'ordered oldest-first'—which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention data units, timezone handling, or error conditions. It is adequate but not rich.

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 exactly two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and a key return characteristic are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 read tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and return ordering. The absence of explicit units or timezone is a minor gap, but the tool is still usable for basic historical fetch scenarios.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (hours range/default and patient_id source), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, which matches 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 'Fetch historical blood glucose readings for a patient,' which specifies the verb (fetch), resource (blood glucose readings), and scope (historical, for a patient). It also adds a distinctive detail about the return format ('time-series... oldest-first') that differentiates it from siblings like get_current_glucose and get_glucose_summary.

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 it is for retrieving past glucose data, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives such as get_current_glucose or get_glucose_summary. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, so the guidance is implicit rather than directive.

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