generate_health_report

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the behavioral safety is already covered. The description adds relevant context about the report's contents (warnings, trends) beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, contains no fluff, and immediately conveys the tool's purpose and content. Every sentence is necessary.

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?

While annotations cover safety, the description does not specify the return format (e.g., JSON, text) or provide enough detail about output structure for a tool with no output schema. It adequately lists included analyses but leaves some gaps.

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 descriptions for both period and format. The description does not add additional semantic details about how these parameters affect the report output, so it meets the baseline.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'comprehensive health report'. It lists specific analyses (HbA1c, glucose trends, insulin/carb) that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_glucose_statistics or get_insulin_analysis.

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 implies this tool is for a high-level report for medical professionals, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs siblings that return raw data. No alternative guidance is given.

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