getWeight

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it explains that each day's latest entry is returned, what extra scale metrics may accompany it, that an average and boundary weights are included, and the units used. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or no-data behavior, but it substantially describes the read behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then packs in the important return-shape details without filler. Despite being dense, every clause contributes either scope, output composition, includeAll behavior, or units.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the return values, and it does so thoroughly: per-day latest entries, optional body-composition metrics, range average, adjacent boundary weights, includeAll behavior, and units. That is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents fromDate, toDate, and includeAll. The description reinforces the date format and includeAll effect and adds unit context, but it does not add much parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies weight data over a date range and enumerates the returned components, so an agent can tell this is the weight-history tool. It lacks an explicit verb and does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as getDailySummary, but the resource-specific scope is still 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?

It gives useful context for the date range and explains when to set includeAll=true, but it does not say when to use this tool instead of related body-composition or daily-summary tools. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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