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. It states the tool retrieves SpO2 data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, data format, or whether it returns historical or real-time data. For a health data tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 details. Every word earns its place: 'Get' (action), 'blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) levels' (resource), and 'throughout the day' (scope). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and scope but lacks behavioral details (e.g., data format, error handling) and usage guidelines. For a health data retrieval tool, this leaves the agent with incomplete context, though the simplicity of the tool means the gaps are less severe than for a more complex operation.

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 'date' parameter fully documented in the schema (including format and default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying temporal scope ('throughout the day'), which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra value. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'Get blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) levels throughout the day.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('SpO2 levels'), and the temporal scope ('throughout the day') helps distinguish it from potential siblings like get_hrv_data or get_respiration_data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as get_body_battery or get_stress_levels, which are also daily health metrics.

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. It mentions 'throughout the day,' which implies daily monitoring, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to siblings like get_respiration_data (which might overlap in health tracking). Without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, the agent must infer context from the tool name alone.

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