hl_get_axis_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds that no personal data is involved, that this is general wellness information, and that it is not medical advice. However, it does not describe output format, potential limitations, or what the agent should expect when calling the tool.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary purpose, and the following sentences add brief safety and scope context. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 single-parameter informational tool, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: axis_id maps to A-H, the output is educational wellness guidance, and there is no personal data. It could be slightly more complete by describing the exact shape of the returned guidance, but that is not a significant gap here.

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 schema provides only a bare string 'axis_id' with no enum or description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by indicating the axis_id must be one of the 8 axes (A-H), which is essential. Still, it does not specify exact accepted values, case sensitivity, or behavior when the parameter is omitted.

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 states a specific action ('Return mechanism explanation and general wellness guidance') and a specific resource scope ('one of the 8 HealthLens axes (A-H)'). It is clear and actionable, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools beyond the axis-specific subject matter.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like hl_get_wellness_article or hl_search_knowledge. The description implies use for general axis information, but it does not state when-not-to-use or name better-suited siblings.

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