garmin_spo2

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful caveat that availability depends on device support and recording, but says nothing about the shape or granularity of 'acclimation data' or what happens when no data exists (empty vs error).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified rather than over-long.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values needn't be explained. However, the description leaves 'acclimation' undefined and does not clarify the optional samples parameter, so an agent still lacks enough to invoke the tool optimally.

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% and the description mentions no parameters at all. The meaning of 'include_samples' (what samples, at what granularity) and the required 'day' format are left entirely to the bare schema types, which is inadequate compensation for a 0% coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus a precise resource (daily Pulse Ox/SpO2 and acclimation data), which clearly separates it from siblings like garmin_sleep, garmin_heart_rate and garmin_hrv. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, but the resource is distinctive enough that an agent won't confuse it.

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 clause 'if supported and recorded by the device' gives a useful pre-condition hint that the call may return empty on unsupported hardware, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives (e.g. garmin_health_snapshot for a broader view). Usage is only implied.

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