get_daily_steps

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), but the description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations do not: automatic chunking around Garmin's 28-day-per-request cap, concatenation of windows, and an unchecked pass-through that can yield `null` for a single in-limit request. That null-handling disclosure is exactly the kind of trait an agent needs before assuming a result is present.

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?

It is compact — a single dense sentence with no filler — but it is front-loaded with implementation internals rather than the user-facing outcome, and the semicolon-clause about `null` results reads as jargon. Concise, but not optimally ordered.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it only hints at shape via the `null` pass-through remark. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing at the response structure (per-day entries, ordering, units).

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters fully documented (YYYY-MM-DD, UTC), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only that these two values bound the chunked range; it gives no extra format or boundary semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 never actually states that this returns daily step counts — that meaning comes only from the tool name and title. Instead it leads with request-chunking mechanics, so the purpose is only implied. It also does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like get_weekly_steps or get_steps_data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over get_weekly_steps, get_steps_data, or get_daily_stats. The only selection-relevant signal is the implied date-range input, which the schema already conveys.

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