get_blood_pressure

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that readings are 'logged in Garmin Connect' and implies a read-only operation, but it omits details like whether it returns raw readings or aggregated values, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The minimal information is correct but insufficiently rich for a zero-annotation tool.

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 efficient: a single purpose sentence followed by a compact args section. It front-loads the core functionality and keeps argument details separate, with no unnecessary prose.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential input handling. However, it does not explain edge cases (e.g., behavior when no data exists) or any constraints beyond date format. It is adequate for basic usage but lacks depth for nuanced scenarios.

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?

The schema provides no description for parameters (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining the format (YYYY-MM-DD) and defaults for both start_date and end_date. This gives clear semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states it retrieves blood pressure readings from Garmin Connect over a date range, which is a specific verb-resource combo. It differentiates from other get_* tools by naming the specific data type, though it does not explicitly mention sibling tool alternatives.

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 use this tool versus others, nor any exclusions or alternative tool suggestions. The description implies usage (retrieve BP data for a range) but provides no context about typical use cases or how it differs from similar metric tools.

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