get_weight_measurements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful detail that the range is inclusive, but it does not disclose what the 'date limits' actually are, so it only partly compensates for the deferral.

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 of four sentences are boilerplate restating the tool name or pointing at an unnamed 'official interface,' pushing the one substantive sentence to the end. The useful scope information is buried rather than 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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description must carry the load for date formatting, allowed range, and return shape. It supplies only 'inclusive' and otherwise punts to the official API, leaving an agent unable to construct a valid call with confidence.

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 0%, so both start_date and end_date are undocumented in the schema. The description only implies 'inclusive calendar date range' — it gives no date format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD), no timezone, and no maximum range, so it does not fill the gap.

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 final sentence gives a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Return all weight data for an inclusive calendar date range.' This lets an agent tell it apart from the daily-metric siblings (steps, sleep, HRV) without opening the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly and the first three sentences merely restate the tool name.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_effective_weight_goals, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. '参数和日期限制沿用官方接口' ('parameter and date limits follow the official interface') defers guidance to an external document the agent cannot see.

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