get_daily_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the call aggregates all daily metrics in one call and which metrics are included, but it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, nor does it describe edge cases like missing data, timezone handling, or response size. The 'single call' trait is useful but the safety profile is left implicit.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful but not exhaustive list of metrics. The 'and more' tail is slightly vague but acceptable; the content earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a tool of this scope.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return types. It covers the primary use case, the parameter, and the breadth of data. It could be more complete by addressing what happens when data is unavailable for a date, but the current level is adequate for a first-call summary tool.

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 only a bare 'date' property with a null default, so the description's explicit 'Calendar date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to today' adds essential semantic value. It fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and leaves no ambiguity about how to supply the parameter.

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 opens with 'Everything Garmin records for one day in a single call', which clearly states the verb (get), resource (daily Garmin data), and aggregate scope. It distinguishes itself from metric-specific siblings like get_sleep or get_stress by emphasizing the all-in-one nature and adding 'Best first call for "how was my day"'.

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?

The phrase 'Best first call for "how was my day"' gives a clear contextual use case for starting with this tool before drilling down into specifics. It does not, however, explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for narrower needs, so it falls short of full exclusionary guidance.

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