Get daily summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by naming the exact metric set returned and the today-default for the date, but says nothing about cost, rate limits, or what happens on dates with no recorded data.

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?

Two short blocks: the scope and metric inventory first, then the parameter note. The metric enumeration is long but earns its place by telling the agent exactly what data it will receive. No filler sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly compensates by listing the returned metrics, and it covers the single optional parameter's format and default. The remaining gap is routing guidance against the many overlapping wellness siblings, which is a usage rather than a calling-correctness issue.

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% for the lone date parameter, so the description carries the burden and does so: it specifies the YYYY-MM-DD format and states the default is today, which is meaningful since the schema shows only a null default. Missing only edge-case behavior such as timezone or out-of-range handling.

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 pair (all-day wellness totals for one date) and enumerates the metrics returned, which implicitly distinguishes it from single-metric siblings like garmin_get_steps or garmin_get_stress. It does not address the near-identical sibling garmin_get_daily_summaries (plural), which handles ranges, so the boundary is not explicitly drawn.

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 only usage cue is the default for the date parameter. With siblings such as garmin_get_day, garmin_get_daily_summaries, and per-metric tools like garmin_get_spo2, an agent gets no instruction on when to pick this aggregate over those narrower calls.

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