garmin_api_get

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the response is 'squeezed' with nulls and image/ID noise removed and long lists cut, which warns the agent that returned data is lossy/truncated. It stops short of stating auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior on invalid paths.

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 purpose and the exclusion rule are front-loaded in the first sentence, which is exactly right. The trailing list of five example paths is somewhat long, though each one demonstrates a different path shape and thus mostly earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains — what the tool is for, when not to use it, valid path shapes, and that output is trimmed — is all present.

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?

At 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the single schema example by showing multiple real path templates, including segment-style ({start}/{end}) and query-style (?date=…) forms — useful for constructing a valid 'path' and knowing when to use 'params' instead.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('GET any Personal API path and return the JSON') and immediately frames itself as an escape hatch, which distinguishes it from every typed sibling (get_recovery, get_activity, etc.) without the agent needing to read schemas.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use only when no other tool covers the data' — an unambiguous when-not rule — and backs it with concrete path examples showing the data domains (stress, heart rate, SpO2, fitness age, weight goal) that the typed siblings don't cover.

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