get_latest_measurement

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful non-obvious behaviors: it returns null when no measurement matches and refuses to claim latest if a scan limit is reached. The scan-limit wording is somewhat vague, but it still discloses an important edge case beyond what annotations convey.

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 no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds distinct behavioral information: null return and scan-limit refusal. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter, strong safety annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, the null case, and an important limit-related edge case. The only shortfall is that 'Refuses to claim latest if the scan limit is reached' is ambiguous about what the tool actually returns or does in that scenario.

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 the schema already fully documents the single optional parameter, including its source (get_scale_users) and default behavior when omitted. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific action ('Read'), a specific resource ('the latest owned measurement'), and what fields are included ('all available body composition fields'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_measurements and get_weight_trend by emphasizing 'latest'.

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 description implies its use case through the word 'latest', but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_measurements or get_weight_trend, nor does it state any exclusions. The parameter cross-reference to get_scale_users provides some context but not tool-selection guidance.

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