get_daily_weigh_ins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It only restates a read action with date scoping; it does not disclose read-only guarantees, authentication needs, timezone handling, or behavior when no weigh-ins exist. The description adds little beyond the tool name.

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-line docstring with no filler; the action and the parameter format are immediately visible. The structure is ideal for a single-parameter tool.

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 one parameter, an output schema, and a simple read behavior, the description is nearly sufficient. However, it leaves the relationship to get_weigh_ins unspecified and provides no usage context, so an agent comparing siblings may not confidently select it.

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 only provides a string type for date, so the description's 'YYYY-MM-DD format' adds essential validation detail. It does not explain the date's meaning beyond what the name implies, but the format guidance is the most important semantic for this parameter.

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?

States a specific action ('Get') and a precise resource scope ('weight measurements for a specific date'), making the endpoint's function immediately obvious. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling get_weigh_ins, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'for a specific date' implies this tool is for date-scoped weight queries. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like get_weigh_ins.

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