Get Fitbit Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the requirement for the 'profile' OAuth scope, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as rate limits or data freshness.

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 extremely concise at two short sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core purpose, the second states a key prerequisite. No filler or redundant content.

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 tool with comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits clarification of the sibling 'fitbit_profile_get' tool and does not elaborate on parameter behavior, which leaves some gaps in a complete picture.

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?

With 67% schema coverage (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions), the description adds no parameter information whatsoever. It fails to explain the 'response_format' parameter, which lacks a schema description, and does not clarify defaults or usage of any parameter.

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 the authenticated Fitbit profile, using specific verb 'Get' and resource 'Fitbit user profile'. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling 'fitbit_profile_get', which has a very similar name and purpose.

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 mentions 'Requires profile scope' as a prerequisite but provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'fitbit_profile_get' or other profile-related tools. No explicit usage context or exclusions are given.

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