get_glucose_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely behavioral context beyond that: the time window, the sampling cadence, and the sort order of results. It omits pagination/truncation behavior, but the added data-shape detail is real value.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the scope, granularity, and ordering. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with a fully documented parameter, the description supplies the remaining needed context (window, cadence, order). Only minor gaps like pagination/truncation remain.

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 coverage is 100% with a single optional 'patient' parameter that the schema fully documents (name or patient_id, omit for single-person accounts). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the resource (glucose readings) and pins down scope precisely: roughly 12 hours, ~15-minute intervals, oldest first. That window and granularity clearly separate it from get_current_glucose, though it never explicitly names the sibling. It is a clear, well-scoped retrieval, just short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied by the 12-hour window — an agent can infer this is for trend/history views rather than a single current value, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'not for...' statement. No alternative is named.

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