Body composition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it only returns days with a recorded weigh-in and explains that empty results indicate missing data, not an error. This is meaningful and does not contradict any annotations.

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 two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds an important caveat. No wasted words, ideal for quick AI parsing.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It lists the key metrics returned and explicitly addresses empty-result behavior. Combined with comprehensive schema descriptions and annotations, the tool is fully specified for a read-only retrieval operation.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., detail enum, date formats). The description's mention of returned fields complements but does not override or deepen parameter understanding.

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 states the tool gets weigh-ins over a date range and lists specific metrics (weight, BMI, body fat, water percentage, muscle and bone mass, range averages). This is a specific verb+resource with concrete data fields, making it distinct from sibling tools that retrieve other health metrics.

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: it returns weigh-in data for a date range and notes that an empty result means no measurement was recorded. While it doesn't explicitly mention when to use an alternative sibling tool, the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool for body composition-related queries.

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