garmin_heart_rate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only lists data fields. It does not disclose whether the 7-day average is based on the requested date, whether historical data is available, or any caveats about data availability or timezone handling.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core data content without filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool returns.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and one optional parameter, the description conveys the main output fields. However, it omits important context such as how the 7-day average relates to the date parameter and provides no usage guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 100%, with the single 'date' parameter already documented as 'ISO date YYYY-MM-DD; defaults to today.' The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (heart rate) and the specific data returned (daily resting, min, max, and 7-day resting average), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like garmin_hrv or garmin_stress. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the noun-phrase description is unambiguous.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as garmin_today or garmin_hr_zones. There are no stated exclusions or conditions, so an agent must infer usage purely from the metric name.

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