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

The description only restates the action without disclosing behavioral details such as whether it inserts a new record, updates an existing one, or requires authentication. Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description adds no incremental transparency about side effects or data handling.

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 a single sentence that leads with the verb and resource, followed by a compact list of examples. It contains no fluff or redundant content and is easy to parse.

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's complexity (15 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but the schema covers parameter semantics fully. It does not mention what a successful log returns, how duplicates are handled, or that measured_at defaults to now (though that is in the schema). With high schema coverage, this is adequate but leaves some contextual 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?

The schema provides complete descriptions for all 15 parameters, and the description merely lists a few examples without adding semantic nuance. It does not clarify relationships between parameters or any special constraints beyond what the schema already states, so it delivers no added value.

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 a specific action ('log') and resource ('body measurements') and lists representative metrics, making the tool's purpose immediately recognizable. It implicitly differentiates itself from sibling logging tools like log_nutrition and log_workout by the resource type, but does not explicitly reference alternatives.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as log_nutrition or log_workout, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. However, the resource focus on body measurements makes the intended use case inferable.

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