health_get_profile

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: cache-first reading, the UTC fetch timestamps, and the important null semantics ('A record is null when it has never been fetched, which includes one whose permission the grant lacks'). It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or error behavior more concretely.

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 the operation, then record contents, then cache behavior, then the parameter. Slightly wordy ('Each is the record Google returns, kept whole') but every section delivers a distinct piece of information and nothing is repeated.

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 values need not be re-explained, yet the description's note on null-vs-never-fetched and the fetch timestamps adds useful interpretation. For a low-complexity single-parameter read tool it is essentially complete; only the sibling overlap with health_get_irregular_rhythm is left unaddressed.

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 single 'live' parameter must be explained by prose, and it is: 'If true, re-fetch the records from the API before reading the cache.' That fully compensates for the missing schema documentation, though with only one boolean parameter there is little room to exceed this.

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 the account's profile, settings and irregular-rhythm enrolment') and then enumerates exactly what each of the three returned records contains. An agent can distinguish it from health_get_devices, health_get_irregular_rhythm, and the other siblings without opening the schema.

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 gives a real, actionable default ('Returns data from the local cache by default') and explains the live flag as the way to bypass it, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over the overlapping sibling health_get_irregular_rhythm, nor any explicit when-not conditions.

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