garmin_api_weight_range

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

Annotations already establish this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value beyond them: raw JSON fields are not normalized, and requests are capped at 31 days with a 7-day default, both of which materially affect how results come back and when a call fails.

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 sentences with little padding, and the most actionable constraints (defaults, caps, non-normalized fields) are present. But the opening fragment 'Weight range response' is front-loaded with the least informative content, and the pagination remark about activity search does not belong in a weight tool's 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 needn't be explained, and the 'not normalized' warning covers shape expectations. Still missing for a tool with zero schema coverage and a near-duplicate sibling: date string format and a clear statement of how this differs from garmin_api_weight_all.

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 parameter meaning. It explains include_all ('all versus latest daily entries') and the date-range default/maximum, which is genuine added meaning, but it never states the expected date format for start_date and end_date, so an agent must guess the string syntax.

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 conveys that this returns weight entries over a date range, but it does so as a noun phrase ('Weight range response') rather than a clear verb+resource statement. Crucially, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling garmin_api_weight_all, which by name appears to cover the same resource, leaving the agent guessing which to pick.

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 7-day default and 31-day cap are concrete usage constraints, and include_all's effect is stated. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus garmin_api_weight_all or garmin_api_weight_goals, and the parenthetical about 'activity search uses pagination' is an unexplained aside that does not help decide anything here.

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