Get weight goals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description usefully adds that the range is inclusive and that the default is the 7 days ending today, but says nothing about ordering, whether multiple goals can overlap, or what an empty range returns.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and return content, followed by a compact parameter note. The 'start, end:' label is terse but nothing is wasted.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies enough: what is returned, the date format, inclusivity, and the default window. The main residual gap is behavior when only one bound is given.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameters — and it does, giving the YYYY-MM-DD format, the inclusive semantics, and the default window for both start and end. It does not clarify how the two interact if only one is supplied, which keeps it from a 5.

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 (weight goals) and a specific scope (goals in effect during a date range, with their target ranges), which distinguishes it from measurement-returning siblings such as garmin_get_weight. It does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast with it, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'in effect during a date range' plus the default window, which tells the agent that omitting dates yields the last 7 days. There is no explicit when-to-use versus garmin_get_weight or when-not guidance, so this is only minimum-viable routing information.

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