withings_get_intraday_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose useful behavior: series are high-resolution, limited to 24 hours per call, and come from a watch rather than a scale. However, it does not explain the return format, units, timestamps, error behavior, or what happens if the requested range exceeds 24 hours.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, resource, and examples; the second adds the key source distinction and limitation. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source for return-behavior context. While it conveys the series nature and the 24-hour cap, it omits details such as the response structure, how to handle ranges longer than 24 hours, and whether returned values have particular units. This leaves meaningful gaps for a data-fetching tool.

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 descriptions already cover all three parameters, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying the 24-hour call limit, which directly affects how startdate and enddate should be used, and it offers an illustrative list of accepted data_fields beyond the schema string.

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'), names the resource ('watch/tracker series'), and lists concrete data fields such as heart_rate and core_body_temperature. It also distinguishes the tool from scale-based measurements by explicitly saying it is for a Withings watch, not the scale, which separates it from several sibling 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 context: use this for continuous vitals from a watch, not the scale. It implies this is the main tool for high-resolution series rather than single measurements, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer sibling tools like withings_get_heart_rate or withings_get_spo2.

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