Garmin Connect MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or what 'detailed' entails (e.g., time-series vs. summary data). For a health data tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning: the action, resource, and analysis context.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (health data retrieval), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what data is retrieved and for what purpose, but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, data format, or error conditions that would help an agent use it correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'date' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed heart rate variability (HRV) data'), and specifies the analysis context ('for recovery and stress analysis'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stress_levels' or 'get_recovery_time' that might overlap in purpose.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to health metrics (e.g., 'get_stress_levels', 'get_recovery_time', 'get_training_readiness'), there's no indication of when HRV data is preferred or what distinguishes it from other recovery/stress-related tools.

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