get_weigh_ins

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that the tool returns every weigh-in in a date range and lists the types of metrics included, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination limits, whether both dates are inclusive, timezone handling, or any read-only guarantee beyond the 'get' naming convention.

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 two compact parts: a front-loaded one-sentence purpose statement covering the resource and date range, followed by a minimal Args block. Every sentence adds information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema contents.

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 simple read tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns, the date range semantics, and parameter formats. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though it could have added a note about alternative tools for similar metrics or clarified inclusivity of the date boundaries.

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 input schema provides only type/null info for two optional parameters with zero description coverage. The description compensates fully by specifying YYYY-MM-DD format for both start_date and end_date, plus their default behaviors (30 days ago and today). This is exactly the semantic detail an agent needs beyond 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 a specific resource ('weigh-ins') and the key attributes it returns (weight, BMI, body fat, muscle mass), with a clear date-range scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from similar sibling tools like get_body_composition or get_stats_and_body, so it stops short of full 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 description implies a read-only historical query of weigh-ins within a date range, and provides defaults, but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_body_composition or get_daily_summary. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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