Body Measures (Withings)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing common meastype codes and the default behavior (weight+composition), which informs the agent about expected output scope. It doesn't mention pagination or units, but that gap is minor given the annotation coverage.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second lists common codes and defaults. Every sentence earns its place, there is no redundancy, and the most important information (purpose) 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally explain what the response contains (e.g., units, structure). It covers the input parameters and defaults well, but it omits return format and pagination behavior. Given the simplicity of the tool and the strong annotation profile, this is an adequate but not complete description.

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 coverage is 50%: meastypes and lastUpdate have descriptions, while startDate and endDate do not. The description compensates by explaining the date-range concept and providing the numerical meastype codes, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. It doesn't fully describe all parameter nuances, but it significantly enhances understanding of how to use the parameters.

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 tool as retrieving body measurements by type and date range, and lists common meastype codes that distinguish it from sibling tools like withings_get_activity or withings_get_sleep. The verb 'get' is inherent in the name, and the resource ('Body measurements') is specific and 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 gives usage context (measurements by type/date, defaults to weight+composition) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling tools such as withings_get_activity or withings_get_sleep. The differentiation is implicit through the meastype list and the domain of body composition, but no direct alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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