List weigh-ins

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

Annotations cover read-only/idempotent safety, but the description adds real behavioral context: it includes every reading on multi-reading days, returns oldest-first, and surfaces body composition plus a delete-compatible sample_pk. It stops short of describing pagination or date-range bounds, which is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior, then the sibling routing. Every clause is informative, though the three-way comparison against get_trend and get_day_summary makes it slightly dense.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description still covers ordering, deduplication of multi-reading days, the end default, and alternative tools. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating that end defaults to start, a defaulting behavior the schema does not encode.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every weigh-in') with an explicit range and ordering ('from start to end, oldest first'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling read tools by naming get_trend and get_day_summary as alternatives for different views.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use get_trend for a single daily value with average/change, use get_day_summary for the day's last weigh-in, and use this tool for every reading. It also tells the agent the returned sample_pk is what delete_weigh_in consumes.

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