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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description only exposes implementation detail (delegation to the bodyComposition service) and adds nothing about return shape, permissions, or limits.

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?

Two sentences that restate the same merge idea, with the second simply expanding the first. It leads with internal function names instead of a front-loaded statement of what the tool returns, so the text is redundant rather than efficient.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool in a large family of near-identical `get_*` stats tools, the description omits the key routing information: how this differs from `get_stats`, `get_user_summary`, and `get_body_composition`. There is no output schema, so the description is the only place that distinction could be made, and it is not.

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% and the single `cdate` parameter is fully documented in the schema (YYYY-MM-DD, UTC). The description never references the date parameter, so the baseline 3 applies with 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 conveys that the result is a merge of a user summary with body-composition averages, which hints at the resource, but it explains the tool in terms of internal functions (`getUserSummary`, `getBodyComposition`) rather than in terms of what the agent gets back. It does not distinguish this merged call from siblings like `get_stats`, `get_user_summary`, or `get_body_composition`.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this combined call versus calling `get_stats`/`get_user_summary` and `get_body_composition` separately, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be entirely inferred.

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