withings_list_heart_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides meaningful traits: device prerequisite, common empty-result scenario, default 30-day range, and AFib metadata in the response. The verb 'List' implies read-only behavior, but the description does not explicitly state pagination behavior or what a returned record contains beyond AFib metadata, so it is slightly incomplete.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then prerequisites, empty-result context, default range, and alternative tool. Every sentence adds useful decision-making information without redundancy or filler.

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 simple list tool with no required parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers prerequisites, typical emptiness, defaults, and a relevant alternative. It is slightly incomplete in not clarifying the relationship to withings_get_heart_ecg or describing pagination/return structure, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults for startdate and enddate. The description mostly restates the default 30-day range and adds no significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('ECG / heart recordings'), and endpoint identity ('Heart v2 list'), plus the notable output detail of AFib classification metadata. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling withings_get_heart_ecg, so while the purpose is clear, differentiation from all close siblings is incomplete.

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 names an alternative tool (withings_get_heart_rate with include_intraday) for continuous watch HR, gives a clear device prerequisite (ECG-capable device), and notes when results are likely empty. This gives an agent concrete guidance on when to choose this tool versus another.

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