garmin_daily_metrics

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the 1–90 day range limit, the seven-day segmentation constraint, explicit segment dates, and that response shapes/units come from Garmin.

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 short and front-loaded, leading with the core action and scope before enumerating metrics and response notes. Every sentence adds information about range limits, segmentation, or response provenance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a required 3-parameter tool with 0% schema descriptions, the description should clarify whether the seven-day segmentation is enforced by the tool or must be handled by the caller, and it should set expectations for large ranges. The current text is adequate but leaves this operational ambiguity unresolved.

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 compensate. It lists the metric values matching the enum and clarifies the date range (1–90 inclusive days) and seven-day segmentation, which adds real meaning for the date parameters. It does not explain whether segmentation is automatic or caller-driven, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clear verb ('Read daily trends') and scope (1–90 days) and enumerates the exact metric categories, which lets an agent map it to the correct data domain. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from metric-specific siblings like garmin_sleep or garmin_hrv, so an agent could still be unsure when this aggregator is preferred.

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 implies multi-day trend retrieval and the seven-day segmentation constraint implies batching behavior, but it never says when to use this tool instead of garmin_sleep, garmin_hrv, garmin_daily_summary, or other siblings. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing rules.

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