get_menstrual_reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the exact default values applied when options are omitted, that todayCalendarDate silently defaults to today, and — most valuably — that numberOfCycles outside {1,6,12} throws GarminError. It stops short of describing the returned report structure, so not a 5.

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 text is terse with no wasted words, but it is a single telegraphic fragment that front-loads parameter trivia rather than the tool's purpose. Appropriately sized for the schema detail it adds, but structured backwards for an agent scanning for intent.

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 read-only tool with no output schema sitting among five or six menstrual-data siblings, the description leaves too much out: no statement of what the report contains, no when-to-use guidance, and no differentiation from get_menstrual_calendar_data or get_menstrual_cycle_summary. Only the parameter-level gaps are filled.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents defaults for nextReport, reportType, and todayCalendarDate (all undocumented in the nested schema) and supplies the enum-like restriction {1,6,12} plus default 6 for numberOfCycles. The required fordate is left to the schema, which describes it fully.

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 — it opens with a list of default parameter values and a validation constraint. The resource and verb are only recoverable from the tool name 'get_menstrual_reports'. No sibling differentiation (vs. get_menstrual_cycle_summary, get_menstrual_calendar_data, get_menstrual_data_for_date) is offered.

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 call this tool, what fordate means in context, or how it differs from the several other menstrual-report retrieval tools in the sibling list. The description is purely mechanical (defaults and limits), leaving usage entirely to inference.

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