garmin_weight

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the default date window and the caveat about body composition, but doesn't disclose return shape, units, or behavior when no weigh-ins exist; this is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core behavior and adds the default range and body-composition caveat without redundancy. Every phrase carries meaning.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the main purpose and default behavior. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, an agent still lacks enough detail about accepted date formats and response contents to call it with full confidence.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented start and end parameters. It mentions a date range and a default of the last 7 days, but does not specify date formats, inclusivity, or how null values behave.

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 identifies the resource ('weigh-ins') and the date-range scoping, which distinguishes it from most Garmin sibling tools at a glance. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', but the meaning is unambiguous from the name and context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as garmin_daily_summary, which may also include weight data. The description only implies usage through 'over a date range' and the default window, but provides no exclusions or selection criteria.

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