withings_get_body_temperature

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses underlying endpoints (getmeas and getintradayactivity), the 24-hour cap for intraday data, and the source types. A minor gap is the lack of any explicit return-shape or pagination behavior, but this is strong for a read-only fetch.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the nuance about intraday vs. spot readings is delivered efficiently without repeating schema content.

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?

The key invocation decision for this tool — when to set include_intraday and the 24-hour window — is fully covered, and all parameters are documented in the schema. The only meaningful gap is the absence of an output schema or description of the exact response shape, which is minor for a simple measurement fetch.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by linking spot readings to specific meastypes and clarifying that watch temperature typically lives in the intraday path. This is a meaningful but not exhaustive enrichment of the parameter semantics.

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 is specific: 'Fetch body temperature' names the resource, and it goes further by distinguishing spot readings (meastypes 12/71/73 via getmeas) from watch intraday core_body_temperature. This clearly separates it from sibling measurement tools.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: thermometer/occasional device measures provide spot readings, while Withings watches usually need include_intraday=true to get continuous temperature. It stops short of naming an alternative tool explicitly, but the invocation guidance is unambiguous.

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