Daily Activity (Withings)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool returns daily summaries for a date range, providing some behavioral context. However, it fails to mention the 'intraday' option that changes the output granularity, which is a significant behavioral trait not covered by annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with key information. Every word ('Daily steps/calories/distance/active minutes for a date range') contributes value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 is a read-only query with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description gives a high-level summary but omits the intraday mode and the response structure. While annotations cover safety, the lack of output schema and low parameter coverage means the description should clarify what the agent can expect from the return value and the effect of the intraday flag. It is minimally complete but has clear gaps.

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 only 33% (only intraday is described). The description compensates slightly by explaining that startDate and endDate form a date range, but it does not elaborate on the intraday parameter or the exact format/meaning of the parameters. Given the low coverage, the description should add more parameter-specific context, but it only provides a minimal hint.

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 the tool returns daily steps, calories, distance, and active minutes for a date range. This specific enumeration of metrics distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sleep, get_workouts, and get_heart. The verb 'get' plus the resource 'activity' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly establishes when to use this tool: when daily activity metrics (steps, calories, distance, active minutes) are needed. It clearly contextualizes the date-range requirement, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The clarity of the metric types serves as sufficient guidance for most cases.

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