garmin_connection_status

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description's real contribution is the explicit 'does not contact Garmin' claim, which tells the agent this is a local config read with no network side effects or auth round-trip. It does not describe failure cases (e.g., what a report looks like when no key is configured), which the output schema presumably covers.

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 sentences, tightly front-loaded: what is reported first, scope caveat second. Nothing redundant, nothing padded.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description needs only to say what is reported and that no remote call occurs — both are stated. A brief note that this is the recommended first call before the data-fetching siblings would make it complete.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no noise about arguments.

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 the exact facts reported: demo/live mode and whether a local key is configured. The added 'Does not contact Garmin' scopes the tool apart from the data-fetching siblings, though it never explicitly frames itself as the pre-flight/config check for the integration.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement; the agent must infer that this is a cheap pre-call check before invoking garmin_daily_metrics, garmin_sleep, etc. The 'does not contact Garmin' line implies it is safe/cheap to call freely, but that is inference, not guidance.

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