Get Body Measurements

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the design rationale: the server deliberately avoids writing measurements to prevent competing records with Withings. This adds meaningful behavioral context about the tool's integration with an external system, which is not conveyed by the annotations alone.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences that each add value. The first sentence identifies the resource, and the second explains the read-only design rationale. There is no fluff or redundant repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 tool with two simple pagination parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the resource and its read-only nature, including the Withings relationship. It does not describe the response structure or explicitly mention pagination, but given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of clear annotations, this is a minor gap.

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 has no descriptions for the parameters (0% schema description coverage), and the description does not mention pagination or the meaning of 'page' and 'pageSize'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation, leaving semantics ambiguous.

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 as body measurements stored in Hevy, which distinguishes it from the workout-related sibling tools. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieve' or 'list' in the description itself, relying on the tool name for the action component.

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 provides clear context that this tool is read-only by design and that Withings is the source of truth, implying it should be used for reading measurements rather than writing. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the source-of-truth rationale gives strong usage guidance.

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