withings_get_blood_pressure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention authentication requirements, pagination behavior (despite an offset parameter), rate limits, or the return format. The only behavioral hint is the source distinction, which is not a behavioral trait. This is a significant gap for a data-fetching tool.

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 short and mostly front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, the inclusion of unexplained numeric identifiers (9, 10, 11) adds confusion without value, and the source note is placed second, which is acceptable but could be clearer. It is concise but not optimally structured for quick agent comprehension.

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 has three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what the returned data contains and any peculiarities. It mentions 'spot pulse' but does not clarify the data structure or the meaning of the numeric identifiers. It also does not address pagination, which is relevant given the offset parameter. This is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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 full descriptions for all three parameters (offset, enddate, startdate), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters—it does not explain default behaviors or how they relate to the blood pressure data. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states a clear verb ('Fetch') and resource ('blood pressure and related spot pulse'), making the tool's purpose identifiable. However, the cryptic 'diastolic 9, systolic 10, heart rate 11' likely refers to internal measurement type IDs without explanation, which could confuse an agent. It partially distinguishes from siblings by noting the source (BPM or scale), but does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping tools like withings_get_measurements.

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 note 'Typical source: BPM or scale, not continuous watch HR' gives some context on when to use this tool (for spot readings) and implies it is not for continuous heart rate, which is handled by withings_get_heart_rate. However, it does not name alternative tools or state explicit exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage conditions.

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