withings_get_measurements

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds valuable decoding semantics (value * 10^unit), but it does not disclose response shape, pagination behavior, or read-only/safety characteristics beyond the word '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 sentences with no filler: core function first, then filtering, then value decoding, then key negative guidance. The most important scoping is front-loaded.

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?

Combined with a richly described schema (defaults, meastype catalog reference, offset semantics), the description covers purpose, routing, and decoding. The main gap is the absence of an output schema or a description of the response envelope, though the offset parameter hints at pagination.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond enumerating example measurement categories and saying meastypes can filter; it does not expand on startdate/enddate defaults or offset semantics, which the schema already covers.

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?

States a specific action and resource: fetching spot/scale health measurements via getmeas, with example categories (weight, composition, BP, spot HR/temp/SpO2). It also distinguishes itself by explicitly saying it is NOT the main source for continuous watch vitals and names alternatives.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use context (spot/scale measurements optionally filtered by meastypes) and an explicit when-not clause with explicit alternative siblings: withings_get_intraday_activity, withings_get_heart_rate, and withings_get_body_temperature with include_intraday=true. This is strong routing guidance beyond the schema.

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