get_body_composition

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds transparency about the maximum date range and data source, but it does not disclose default behavior when dates are omitted, date format expectations, or how the endpoint handles over-range requests.

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; the verb, resource, and key constraint all appear before any secondary details.

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 an output schema and only two optional simple parameters, the missing pieces are small, but the lack of default-date behavior and usage routing leaves an agent to infer how to call it without arguments.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the meaningful constraint that start/end dates span at most 366 days, but it does not document date syntax or what null defaults mean for each parameter.

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 ('Get'), resource ('weight and Garmin-provided body composition'), and a concrete boundary (at most 366 days). This clearly differentiates it from sibling health-data tools by naming the body-composition resource.

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 resource name implies use when body composition or weight data is needed, and the 366-day cap is a useful constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or give exclusions.

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