Get day overview

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

Goes beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing partial-failure semantics: a section Garmin has no data for returns {"error": ...} while the rest still load. That is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs to avoid misreading a partial payload as total failure, though auth and rate-limit behavior against the external API are unmentioned.

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?

Front-loads the core concept, then the section inventory, then the failure caveat, then the parameter note — a sensible order. The comma-delimited metric list is dense but every item earns its place by telling the agent what will be returned.

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?

With only one optional parameter, no output schema, and safety already covered by annotations, the description supplies the missing pieces: what the payload contains, the date format and default, and how missing sections surface. Little an agent needs in order to call this correctly is absent.

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 carry the load, and it does: it gives the 'YYYY-MM-DD' format and states the default is today. Minor friction remains because the schema declares default null rather than 'today', so the agent must trust the prose over the structured default.

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 concrete verb and resource ('one day at a glance') and enumerates exactly which sections are returned: daily summary, sleep, HRV, body battery, stress, activities. It implicitly positions itself as the multi-metric aggregate against the single-metric siblings, but never names them, so the agent must infer the split.

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?

'One day at a glance' implies the broad-overview use case, which suggests preferring this over calling garmin_get_daily_summary, garmin_get_sleep and garmin_get_stress individually. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, leaving the routing choice to inference.

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