health_auth_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the error-recovery context but does not disclose other behavioral details such as cache behavior or credential refresh semantics. It is consistent with annotations and provides some useful context, earning a baseline 3.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, followed immediately by the key usage directive. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status check with an output schema present, the description fully equips an agent: it knows what the tool does and exactly when to call it. No additional context is needed.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is fine because there are none to document; per the baseline for 0 parameters, this scores a 4.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Check'), resource ('server holds valid Google Health credentials'), and outcome. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the health_data_types, health_profile, and other data-retrieval siblings by focusing on authentication state rather than health data.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this first if any other tool returns a not_authorized error.' This provides a concrete trigger condition and sequencing directive, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool instead of its siblings.

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