get_daily_weigh_ins

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and the date format, without mentioning what is returned, whether multiple measurements can exist for one date, or any limitation or error behavior. This is minimal beyond the core purpose.

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 extremely brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a single argument specification. There is no fluff, and the only additional detail is the required date format, which is necessary.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema), the description covers the basic calling needs. However, it does not distinguish this from get_weigh_ins or mention any behavioral nuances, leaving some ambiguity given the large sibling set.

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 a string property named 'date' with no description (0% schema description coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by specifying the exact YYYY-MM-DD format, which is essential for correct invocation and is not present in 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 opens with the verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource 'weight measurements' scoped to 'a specific date.' This directly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_weigh_ins (likely broader) and add/delete weigh-in tools, giving an agent enough to select it correctly.

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 usage for a specific date, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over get_weigh_ins or other weigh-in tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are included, so the agent must infer the distinction from the phrase 'for a specific date.'

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