Get weight summary (date range)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds meaningful context on top: the unit conventions (grams, so 75000 = 75 kg), that bodyFat/bodyWater are percentages, and that timestamps are epoch milliseconds. Those details prevent the most likely misreadings, though nothing is said about missing data, empty ranges, or result size.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and then packed with return-value facts; each clause (field list, gram units, percentage fields, epoch timestamps) carries real information. It is dense rather than wasteful, though splitting the units note into its own sentence would improve scanability.

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 full burden of return-value documentation and does so: it names the payload fields, their units, and the boundary behavior outside the range. An agent can interpret the response correctly without additional context.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description restates includeAll's effect on dailyWeightSummaries but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already says; it does not, for example, explain interaction with the before/after lookups.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource ('Get a weight summary for a date range') and enumerates exactly what comes back (dailyWeightSummaries, totalAverage, previousDateWeight/nextDateWeight). The summary-vs-raw distinction from garmin_get_weight_entries is only implied, not stated, so sibling differentiation is left to the agent.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as garmin_get_weight_entries or garmin_get_weight_goals. Usage is only implied by the date-range scoping and the summary framing.

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