get_vitals_overview

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

The description honestly discloses that it is a placeholder and requires a separate API. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it adds some transparency about its incomplete state but does not detail behavioral traits like side effects or auth requirements.

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 with the main purpose. It includes necessary caveats and a clear Args/Returns section. Slightly awkward phrasing but no unnecessary content.

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 tool is a placeholder and has an output schema, the description adequately conveys its incomplete nature. However, it lacks context on how it compares to functionally similar tools like 'get_vitals_metrics'.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it repeats 'package_name' and says 'App package name', which is not more informative than the property type. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get Android Vitals overview for an app'. It is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_vitals_metrics'.

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 mentions that full implementation requires a separate API and returns placeholder data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_vitals_metrics' or other siblings.

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