Get all weight entries (date range)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: units in GRAMS with a worked example (75000 = 75 kg), percentage fields, epoch-millisecond timestamps, and that weightDelta is change since the previous weigh-in. It stops short of return ordering or how empty ranges behave, but the added value is substantial.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause and the alternative-tool routing is placed last, which is the right order. The field enumeration is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what comes back; the sentence is dense rather than padded, though it could have been split for readability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place return values can be described — and it does so thoroughly: the full field list, units for each measurement class, and the temporal format of timestamps. With the two date parameters covered by schema and the safety profile covered by annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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 documents both startDate and endDate including format, inclusivity and local-calendar semantics. The description only implies the date range generally and adds no syntax, boundary, or default information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 verb+resource+granularity: 'every individual weigh-in in a date range', and explicitly broadens the source ('Index scales, other smart scales or manual entries'). It also names the sibling it is not (garmin_get_weight_summary), so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 final sentence gives an explicit routing rule: 'For one value per day plus the range average use garmin_get_weight_summary.' Combined with 'every individual weigh-in', the when-to-use condition versus the alternative is unambiguous, including the cardinality distinction (many vs one per day).

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