withings_get_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately indicates a read operation ('Fetch') and describes the data granularity, but it does not mention authentication requirements, pagination behavior, date boundaries/timezone handling, or any side effects. For a simple read-only tool this is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the key alternative mention in the second sentence. Every word earns its place and the structure maximizes scannability for an agent.

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 low-complexity tool with four optional parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns, when to use it, and the relevant alternative. Minor gaps like pagination semantics and date-range boundaries are left to the schema, but the guidance is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, with all four parameters having descriptive names, types, and defaults. The description adds a helpful list of example activity fields that align with data_fields, but it does not meaningfully enrich the schema's parameter documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('daily activity summaries from the watch/tracker'), and lists concrete data types such as steps, distance, calories, and HR zones. It clearly differentiates itself from the close sibling withings_get_intraday_activity by emphasizing day-level summaries.

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 explicitly states when to prefer this tool ('day-level watch stats') and directs the agent to the alternative for minute-level series. This is direct, actionable guidance that resolves ambiguity without needing to inspect sibling schemas.

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