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. It states the tool 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or how the ratio is calculated. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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. It is appropriately sized and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks details on usage, behavior, and output, leaving the agent to infer or rely on the schema alone. This is a basic but incomplete description for a data retrieval tool.

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 parameter 'weeks_back' clearly documented. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how the weeks affect the ATL/CTL ratio calculation. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: to retrieve the acute vs chronic training load balance (ATL/CTL ratio) for injury prevention. It specifies the resource (training load balance) and the goal (injury prevention), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'analyze_training_load' or 'get_training_status', which might cover related 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 the purpose (injury prevention) but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to choose this over 'analyze_training_load' or other training-related tools in the sibling list.

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