Get weight goals (date range)

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive semantics, so the description adds real value: it discloses the two result collections (userGoals, userGoalRanges), the unit of measurement (grams, not the user's display unit), and the category vocabulary (MANUAL, PREGNANCY). It does not discuss empty-range behavior or pagination, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key concept (goals in effect during a range) comes first. The parenthetical enumeration of return fields is dense but each item carries information an agent needs.

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 usefully sketches the return shape, units and category values, which is the right use of the space. Reasonably complete for a simple two-parameter read; missing only edge-case behavior for empty or unbounded goal periods.

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% and both required date parameters are fully documented there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The phrase 'in effect during a date range' adds a hint that the range acts as an overlap filter rather than an exact-match filter, but the description does not spell out that boundary behavior.

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 (get weight goals) scoped to a date range, and the name plus description separate it from garmin_get_weight_entries and garmin_get_weight_summary by returning goal definitions rather than measurements. It does not explicitly say how it differs from those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description says it returns goals 'in effect during a date range', which suggests calling it when goal context (target weight, tracking period) is needed. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer weight_entries or weight_summary instead.

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