Garmin Connect MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose permissions, rate limits, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description implies a read operation ('Get'), but without annotations, it should explicitly state safety or constraints, which it does not.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and lists key metrics without unnecessary details, making it easy to parse and understand 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the tool's purpose but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. For a read operation with one parameter, it's functional but could be more informative about response format or constraints.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'date' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying date-based retrieval, which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 current training status' with specific metrics (training effect, load balance, fitness trends). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_training_effect' or 'get_training_load_balance' by combining multiple metrics, though it doesn't explicitly name these siblings for comparison.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare with similar tools (e.g., 'get_training_effect' or 'get_training_load_balance'), leaving the agent to infer usage based on the description alone.

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