health_get_height

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it reveals the caching default, the live refetch path, and the ten-year default window rationale. It does not mention auth requirements or sync side effects, which are the remaining gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and behavior, then a compact Args block. Slight duplication with the schema parameter names and a return-value sentence that is redundant given the existing output schema.

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 three-parameter, no-annotation tool with a rich output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: formats, defaults, cache-versus-live behavior, and the reason for the wide default window.

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 compensate, and it does: it documents all three parameters with accepted date formats ('YYYY-MM-DD', 'YYYY-MM', 'Nd'), defaults for each, and what live=true actually triggers.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get height readings') plus the unit ('in millimetres as Google reports them'), which no sibling covers. An agent can distinguish it from health_get_weight_readings and other metric getters immediately.

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?

Explains context that drives usage: height is usually logged once, often years back, so the default window is ten years, and data comes from the local cache unless live=true. It never explicitly names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, but the caching/live trade-off is clearly laid out.

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