Get heart rate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine behavioral context by enumerating returned metrics and warning that include_samples returns 'the all-day readings (large)', flagging a payload-size tradeoff. It stops short of noting timezone handling or how alerts are represented, but nothing contradicts the annotations.

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-loaded with the returned metrics, then two compact parameter lines — no filler. The terse param lines are slightly clipped but each 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back, and annotations cover the safety profile for this simple two-param read. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge details (timezone, sample granularity, alert semantics) are 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry both parameters, and it does: date is documented as YYYY-MM-DD with default today, and include_samples is explained as also returning all-day readings at a size cost. Remaining gaps are minor (sample resolution, timezone basis for 'day').

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 names the exact resource payload: resting, min, max heart rate for a day, the 7-day resting average, and abnormal high/low alerts. That content is specific enough to separate it from siblings like garmin_get_hrv, garmin_get_stress, or garmin_get_daily_summary without opening the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the data type — an agent infers to call it when it needs heart-rate metrics for a day. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-alternatives guidance (e.g., vs. garmin_get_heart_rate_zones or garmin_get_hrv) and no exclusions.

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