Get Garmin weight

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses the return shape in detail: one row per day with weight plus smart-scale metrics, a `summary` block with average/min/max and first-to-last change, and `previous_weigh_in` as the last entry before the range. It also states the default window and the 366-day cap, which are behavioral limits not present in 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?

Three dense clauses, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then response shape, then defaults and limits. No filler sentences and no repetition of the tool name or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by describing rows, summary fields, and the prior weigh-in. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the date constraints are stated, so an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100% and both date parameters already document format, defaults, and the 366-day cap, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the range concept and limits but adds no date semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

A concrete verb (weigh-ins) plus resource (weight/body composition over a date range) with a precise description of what a row contains. It is clearly distinct from garmin_get_weight_goals in substance, though it never names that sibling or any other to disambiguate explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied through the default window ('last 7 days') and the per-call cap ('at most 366 days'), which tells an agent how calls behave. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance and no statement about when this tool is inappropriate (e.g., goals or trend summaries are handled elsewhere).

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