get_body_composition

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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world safety, but the description adds real behavioral detail: enddate defaults to startdate and a GarminError is thrown when startdate > enddate. That error precondition is valuable, non-obvious information beyond what annotations or schema supply.

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 endpoint path, which is reasonable, but the trailing sentence about getStatsAndBody delegating reads as implementation trivia and the whole thing is a run-on string of semicolon clauses.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what the tool returns (weight/body-composition records over the range), but it only names the endpoint. It covers defaults and error behavior adequately, leaving the return shape unstated.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds the default value for enddate (defaults to startdate) which the schema does not state. That is genuine semantic value over the schema.

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 the underlying endpoint (`/weight-service/weight/dateRange`) and implies a date-range weight/body-composition read, but never states plainly what the caller gets back. It is more specific than the bare name but frames the tool in implementation terms rather than user-facing purpose.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no comparison against the many sibling read tools (get_weigh_ins, get_daily_weigh_ins, get_stats_and_body). The note that getStatsAndBody delegates here hints at a relationship but does not tell the agent when to choose this tool.

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