garmin_body

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by saying ids in the answer are consumed by garmin_delete, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, ordering, or what happens when the range is large. Useful but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three compact clauses with no filler, and the scope ("over a period, default today") is front-loaded. The telegraphic style ("each one, with body composition when a smart scale sent it") is dense but readable; no sentence is wasted.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it sketches all three kinds, including that body_composition includes averages. The blood_pressure payload and any result-count limits remain unstated, but for a simple three-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.

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 67%, with start_date and end_date documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by stating the effective window "default today" – the schema only shows null defaults – and by tying each kind value to a specific payload shape, which clarifies the required enum choice.

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?

"Body measurements over a period" names the resource and the retrieval scope, and the three enumerated kinds match the enum exactly, so an agent knows what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as garmin_add_weigh_in or garmin_wellness, so differentiation is only partial (the write siblings are distinguishable only by inference).

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?

"Default today" implies a common calling pattern, and the closing sentence tells the agent that returned ids feed garmin_delete, which is light routing guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over garmin_trend, garmin_wellness, or the add_* body tools, and no prerequisites (auth, scopes) are mentioned.

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