garmin_api_weight_goals

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: unnormalized raw JSON output and the 7-day default / 31-day cap on the range. The trailing '(activity search uses pagination)' is ambiguous — it is unclear whether it describes this tool or a sibling, so the hint lands weakly.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, but the parenthetical about activity search pagination is confusing and arguably irrelevant, weakening an otherwise tight definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the note that raw JSON is unnormalized usefully prepares the caller. The main gap is the unresolved relationship to the weight_range/weight_all siblings and missing date format.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It supplies defaults and a maximum span for the date interval, which is useful, but never states the accepted date format or how start/end interact (inclusive vs exclusive), leaving both parameters partially undocumented.

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 phrase 'Effective weight goals for a date interval' names the resource and scope, but no verb, and it does not distinguish itself from close siblings garmin_api_weight_range and garmin_api_weight_all. An agent can guess it retrieves goals, but cannot tell from the text why it would pick this over the two weight siblings.

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 'default 7 days / max 31 days' clause gives concrete usage bounds, which is real guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over garmin_api_weight_range or garmin_api_weight_all, and no exclusions.

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