read_bodyweight

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: newest-first ordering, one entry per calendar day, unit normalization to the profile setting, and the exact derived fields returned (latest, targetW, toGoal, 7/30-day change). With no output schema present, this payload disclosure is the main source of value.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with the resource and key constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is slightly overloaded by enumerating several return fields in one breath, but every clause carries information.

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 correctly takes on the job of describing the return payload, and it does so field by field. Parameters are fully covered by the schema. The only ambiguity is how limit interacts with an explicit from/to range when more entries qualify, which is left implicit.

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 100%, so from/to/limit are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces the default limit ('default the newest 30'); it adds no syntax, format, or interaction semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 and scope: a body-weight log with one weigh-in per day, ordered newest first, in the profile unit. This clearly separates it from write_bodyweight/delete_bodyweight and from the broader read_measurements tool. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it should not be confused with, so it lands just under 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 rather than stated: the agent can infer it should call this to inspect weight history, and the '(default the newest 30)' note gives a default range. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as read_measurements or read_training_summary.

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