get_measurement_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds ordering semantics ('oldest first') and the default window, which are genuinely useful beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about volume limits, pagination, or empty-history 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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the ordering clause is useful. The '(default 30)' restates the schema default, a small redundancy that keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only nature. For a simple two-parameter read tool the description is adequate, though it could have noted the multi-member case to match the schema's `member` guidance.

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 both `days` and `member` are fully documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description only restates the `days` default and adds no meaning the schema lacks; `member` is not mentioned at all.

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?

States a specific resource (weigh-ins) and scope (last `days` days, oldest first), which is enough to distinguish it from get_latest_measurement in practice. However, it never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The agent must infer from the name and the sibling set that this is for historical ranges while get_latest_measurement returns the most recent reading; nothing in the text confirms this.

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