Garmin Weight Range

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds only 'Not medical advice,' which is a disclaimer, not a behavioral trait. It does not disclose rate limits, pagination, data availability conditions, or any side effects, adding minimal value beyond the 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 exceptionally concise with two short sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose efficiently, and the second is a necessary disclaimer. No superfluous words or repetition.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete for a simple read operation. It clarifies the data type (weight/body composition) and scope (date range). However, it lacks any mention of how the optional privacy_mode and response_format affect the output, which could be inferred from schema but would benefit from brief surface-level context.

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 high (75%), so most parameters are already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides (e.g., date format defaults, privacy mode options). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for the uncovered 25%.

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 retrieves weight/body-composition logs for a date range, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Garmin weight/body-composition logs'). It distinguishes from the many sibling tools that focus on other data types or daily summaries, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 implies usage for retrieving historical weight data over a range, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., daily summary tools). It does not state when not to use it or mention any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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