mfp_get_measurements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by stating it returns historical data with dates and values, and it clarifies output format options ('markdown'/'json'). This exceeds the minimum but doesn't fully describe pagination or rate limits, though they are likely not relevant.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, then organized into an Args section and Returns statement. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (one nested input object), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what parameters to pass, defaults, and the return type. With output schema present and strong annotations, nothing important is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does, listing each parameter with its type, default values, and allowed values (e.g., response_format as 'markdown' or 'json'). This is complete and actionable.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('body measurements'), and scope ('over a date range'), with examples like weight and body fat. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as mfp_get_diary or mfp_get_water.

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 a clear use case ('Useful for tracking weight loss progress and body composition changes') but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use. It is implied rather than explicit, so it falls short of a 4.

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