get_menstrual_calendar_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a genuinely non-obvious behavior: automatic chunking of requests longer than 92 days due to Garmin's server-side limit, and stitching of responses. This prevents the agent from mistakenly batching or fearing failures on long ranges. It doesn't cover data freshness or invalid-range behavior, but the chunking disclosure is high-value.

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 compact and well-ordered: purpose first, then the critical chunking caveat, then parameter docs. Every sentence earns its place, and the Args section is justified given the schema provides no parameter descriptions.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. Given the tool's low complexity, the description covers the core purpose, the sole tricky behavior (92-day chunking), and both parameters. What's missing is edge-case guidance such as start_date > end_date behavior and timezone handling, making it complete but not exhaustive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does by documenting both parameters with the date format 'YYYY-MM-DD', which the schema omits. This is meaningful because an agent could otherwise guess formats like MM/DD/YYYY. It adds format semantics but nothing beyond that (no ordering constraints or defaults), which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get menstrual calendar data') with a clear scope ('between specified dates'). This scope differentiates it from the closely named sibling get_menstrual_data_for_date, signaling this is the range-based query while that one is per-date, without requiring the agent to open either schema.

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?

Usage context is implied by the 'between specified dates' phrasing — an agent can infer this is the right tool for range queries. However, the description never explicitly names alternatives like get_menstrual_data_for_date or states when NOT to use this tool, leaving tool selection to inference rather than explicit guidance.

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