get_measurements

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: results are sorted newest-first, ownership filtering occurs before pagination, scanComplete must be checked before treating results as complete, and no health classifications are computed. These are specific, non-obvious traits that materially affect how an agent should interpret the response.

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 tightly written sentences, each carrying distinct information: what the tool reads, ordering/format, and crucial interpretation caveats. Nothing is redundant, and the most important action is front-loaded.

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 no-output-schema read tool, the description covers the key operational facts: ordering, raw field format, ownership filtering, completeness checks, and absence of health classifications. It does not enumerate the exact RENPHO fields returned, but the description provides enough context for an agent to call and interpret the tool correctly without an output schema.

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?

The schema already documents since, until, and scaleUserId well. The description adds some relevant context by mentioning ownership filtering and pagination, which maps to scaleUserId and limit/offset. However, it does not clarify limit or offset beyond their names and constraints, and the schema coverage is only 60%, so the description only partially compensates for the undocumented parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read body composition history' and immediately clarifies the sort order ('newest first'). It also distinguishes the raw output ('native RENPHO fields and unit codes') from derived interpretations, making the tool's purpose unmistakable against siblings like get_latest_measurement and get_weight_trend.

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 gives clear context for when this tool applies: retrieving historical body composition data in reverse chronological order. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'history' framing plus the caveat about scanComplete gives an agent enough context to choose it over get_latest_measurement or get_weight_trend.

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