get_floors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: it raises GarminError when Garmin returns no data. However, it omits return shape, units, and whether absence of data is normal (e.g. no floors recorded) versus exceptional.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the single sentence occupies the entire description while omitting purpose. Nothing is front-loaded because there is no main statement to lead with.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum identify the resource being fetched and what the date means. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the agent is left guessing what 'floors' returns and whether the error is expected for days with no stair activity.

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% and the single required parameter cdate is documented in the schema as 'Calendar date, YYYY-MM-DD (UTC)'. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states what the tool does. 'throws `GarminError` if Garmin returns nothing' is an error-handling footnote, not a purpose statement; an agent cannot tell from the text that this retrieves floors-climbed data for a date, nor distinguish it from siblings like get_daily_steps or get_calories_daily.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, no conditions for selecting this over the many other daily-metric getters. The only clause present describes a failure mode, not usage.

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