health_points

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read raw data points.' It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the cross-source reconcile behavior, deduplication, and the high-volume warning that motivates pagination awareness.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then layered with the reconcile detail and the low-level guidance. Every sentence earns its place, though the three-paragraph split could be tightened without losing value.

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?

Given the complexity of low-level raw data retrieval, the description covers the most critical behavioral aspects: inclusivity of dates, reconcile semantics, and scale warning. It leaves data_type vocabulary to sibling tools like health_data_types, which is reasonable, and an output schema exists to describe returns.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does explain reconcile=True and the date format (YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive), but it does not explain data_type values, page_size behavior, or how paging works. The partial coverage makes it adequate but not complete.

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-resource pair — 'Read raw data points' — and explicitly frames itself as 'the low-level escape hatch' versus daily-aggregated tools. This clearly separates it from siblings like health_daily and health_daily_brief.

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?

It tells the agent exactly when to prefer alternatives: 'For daily questions prefer health_daily or health_daily_brief' and warns that a single day of heart-rate can be 1440 points. It also explains when reconcile=True is appropriate ('almost always what you want'), leaving little to inference.

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